Cargando…

Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies

STUDY DESIGN: Age- and sex-matched cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes after open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with bilateral facetectomies. METHODS: We retrospectively compared patients who underwent single- or 2-level MIS-TLIF with an age- a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Le, Hai, Anderson, Ryan, Phan, Eileen, Wick, Joseph, Barber, Joshua, Roberto, Rolando, Klineberg, Eric, Javidan, Yashar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8258811/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32677520
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568220932879
_version_ 1783718565953667072
author Le, Hai
Anderson, Ryan
Phan, Eileen
Wick, Joseph
Barber, Joshua
Roberto, Rolando
Klineberg, Eric
Javidan, Yashar
author_facet Le, Hai
Anderson, Ryan
Phan, Eileen
Wick, Joseph
Barber, Joshua
Roberto, Rolando
Klineberg, Eric
Javidan, Yashar
author_sort Le, Hai
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Age- and sex-matched cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes after open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with bilateral facetectomies. METHODS: We retrospectively compared patients who underwent single- or 2-level MIS-TLIF with an age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort. Surgical data was collected for operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and drain use. Clinical outcomes included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), length of stay (LOS), complications, and reoperations. Lumbar radiographs were measured for changes in global lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis (SL). RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2020, 38 MIS-TLIF patients were compared with 38 open-TLIF patients. No subfascial drain was used in the MIS-TLIF group (P < .001). The MIS-TLIF group had longer operative time (310.8 vs 276.5 minutes; P = .046) but less EBL (282.4 vs 420.8 mL; P = .007). LOS (P = .15), complication rates (P = .50), and revision rates (P = .17) were equivalent. VAS and ODI improved but did not differ between groups. In the open-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 81.6% and 86.9% of cases, respectively. In the MIS-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 86.8% and 97.4% of cases, respectively. There were no differences in changes in LL and SL between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had reduced EBL and subfascial drain use but increased operative time. There were no differences in complications, reoperations, or LOS. Both groups demonstrated improvement in VAS and ODI. MIS-TLIF with bilateral facetectomies provided equivalent improvements in global and segmental LL.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8258811
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82588112021-07-16 Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies Le, Hai Anderson, Ryan Phan, Eileen Wick, Joseph Barber, Joshua Roberto, Rolando Klineberg, Eric Javidan, Yashar Global Spine J Original Articles STUDY DESIGN: Age- and sex-matched cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes after open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with bilateral facetectomies. METHODS: We retrospectively compared patients who underwent single- or 2-level MIS-TLIF with an age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort. Surgical data was collected for operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and drain use. Clinical outcomes included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), length of stay (LOS), complications, and reoperations. Lumbar radiographs were measured for changes in global lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis (SL). RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2020, 38 MIS-TLIF patients were compared with 38 open-TLIF patients. No subfascial drain was used in the MIS-TLIF group (P < .001). The MIS-TLIF group had longer operative time (310.8 vs 276.5 minutes; P = .046) but less EBL (282.4 vs 420.8 mL; P = .007). LOS (P = .15), complication rates (P = .50), and revision rates (P = .17) were equivalent. VAS and ODI improved but did not differ between groups. In the open-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 81.6% and 86.9% of cases, respectively. In the MIS-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 86.8% and 97.4% of cases, respectively. There were no differences in changes in LL and SL between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had reduced EBL and subfascial drain use but increased operative time. There were no differences in complications, reoperations, or LOS. Both groups demonstrated improvement in VAS and ODI. MIS-TLIF with bilateral facetectomies provided equivalent improvements in global and segmental LL. SAGE Publications 2020-06-22 2021-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8258811/ /pubmed/32677520 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568220932879 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Le, Hai
Anderson, Ryan
Phan, Eileen
Wick, Joseph
Barber, Joshua
Roberto, Rolando
Klineberg, Eric
Javidan, Yashar
Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies
title Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies
title_full Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies
title_fullStr Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies
title_full_unstemmed Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies
title_short Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies
title_sort clinical and radiographic comparison between open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral facetectomies
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8258811/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32677520
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568220932879
work_keys_str_mv AT lehai clinicalandradiographiccomparisonbetweenopenversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionwithbilateralfacetectomies
AT andersonryan clinicalandradiographiccomparisonbetweenopenversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionwithbilateralfacetectomies
AT phaneileen clinicalandradiographiccomparisonbetweenopenversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionwithbilateralfacetectomies
AT wickjoseph clinicalandradiographiccomparisonbetweenopenversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionwithbilateralfacetectomies
AT barberjoshua clinicalandradiographiccomparisonbetweenopenversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionwithbilateralfacetectomies
AT robertorolando clinicalandradiographiccomparisonbetweenopenversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionwithbilateralfacetectomies
AT klinebergeric clinicalandradiographiccomparisonbetweenopenversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionwithbilateralfacetectomies
AT javidanyashar clinicalandradiographiccomparisonbetweenopenversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionwithbilateralfacetectomies