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-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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