Cargando…
Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study
Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7916072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33567496 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina57020150 |
_version_ | 1783657395594985472 |
---|---|
author | Fukushima, Masayoshi Ohtomo, Nozomu Noma, Michita Kumanomido, Yudai Nakarai, Hiroyuki Tozawa, Keiichiro Yoshida, Yuichi Sakamoto, Ryuji Miyahara, Junya Anno, Masato Kawamura, Naohiro Higashikawa, Akiro Takeshita, Yujiro Inanami, Hirohiko Tanaka, Sakae Oshima, Yasushi |
author_facet | Fukushima, Masayoshi Ohtomo, Nozomu Noma, Michita Kumanomido, Yudai Nakarai, Hiroyuki Tozawa, Keiichiro Yoshida, Yuichi Sakamoto, Ryuji Miyahara, Junya Anno, Masato Kawamura, Naohiro Higashikawa, Akiro Takeshita, Yujiro Inanami, Hirohiko Tanaka, Sakae Oshima, Yasushi |
author_sort | Fukushima, Masayoshi |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7916072 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79160722021-03-01 Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study Fukushima, Masayoshi Ohtomo, Nozomu Noma, Michita Kumanomido, Yudai Nakarai, Hiroyuki Tozawa, Keiichiro Yoshida, Yuichi Sakamoto, Ryuji Miyahara, Junya Anno, Masato Kawamura, Naohiro Higashikawa, Akiro Takeshita, Yujiro Inanami, Hirohiko Tanaka, Sakae Oshima, Yasushi Medicina (Kaunas) Article Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method. MDPI 2021-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7916072/ /pubmed/33567496 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina57020150 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Fukushima, Masayoshi Ohtomo, Nozomu Noma, Michita Kumanomido, Yudai Nakarai, Hiroyuki Tozawa, Keiichiro Yoshida, Yuichi Sakamoto, Ryuji Miyahara, Junya Anno, Masato Kawamura, Naohiro Higashikawa, Akiro Takeshita, Yujiro Inanami, Hirohiko Tanaka, Sakae Oshima, Yasushi Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study |
title | Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study |
title_full | Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study |
title_fullStr | Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study |
title_short | Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study |
title_sort | microendoscope-assisted versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a multicenter retrospective cohort study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7916072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33567496 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina57020150 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fukushimamasayoshi microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT ohtomonozomu microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT nomamichita microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT kumanomidoyudai microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT nakaraihiroyuki microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT tozawakeiichiro microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT yoshidayuichi microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT sakamotoryuji microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT miyaharajunya microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT annomasato microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT kawamuranaohiro microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT higashikawaakiro microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT takeshitayujiro microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT inanamihirohiko microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT tanakasakae microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT oshimayasushi microendoscopeassistedversusopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbardegenerativediseaseamulticenterretrospectivecohortstudy |