Cargando…

Surgical Invasiveness of Single-Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Perioperative Blood Loss in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Traditional Pedicle Screws, Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws, and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws

STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the surgical invasiveness of single-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by comparing perioperative blood loss in PLIF with traditional pedicle screws (PS), cortical bone trajectory screws (CBT), and pe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Inoue, Tetsuji, Mizutamari, Masaya, Hatake, Kuniaki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8696064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33371623
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0296
_version_ 1784619722798530560
author Inoue, Tetsuji
Mizutamari, Masaya
Hatake, Kuniaki
author_facet Inoue, Tetsuji
Mizutamari, Masaya
Hatake, Kuniaki
author_sort Inoue, Tetsuji
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the surgical invasiveness of single-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by comparing perioperative blood loss in PLIF with traditional pedicle screws (PS), cortical bone trajectory screws (CBT), and percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Intraoperative blood loss has often been used to evaluate surgical invasiveness. However, in patients undergoing spinal surgery, more blood loss is observed postoperatively than intraoperatively. Therefore, evaluating surgical invasiveness using only the intraoperative bleeding volume may result in considerable underestimation of the actual surgical invasiveness. METHODS: This study included patients who underwent single-segment PLIF between January 2012 and December 2017. In total, seven patients underwent PLIF with PS (PS-PLIF), nine underwent PLIF with CBT (CBT-PLIF), and 15 underwent PLIF with PPS (PPS-PLIF). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in terms of operation time or intraoperative bleeding between the PS-PLIF, CBT-PLIF, and PPS-PLIF groups. However, the postoperative drainage volume in the PPS-PLIF group (210.1 mL; range, 50–367 mL) was determined to be significantly lower than that in the PS-PLIF (416.7 mL; range, 260–760 mL; p=0.002) and CBT-PLIF (421.1 mL; range, 180–890 mL; p=0.006) groups. In addition, the total amount of intraoperative bleeding and postoperative drainage was found to be significantly lower in the PPS-PLIF group (362.8 mL; range, 145–637 mL) than in the PS-PLIF (639.6 mL; range, 285–1,000 mL; p=0.01) and CBT-PLIF (606.7 mL; range, 270–950 mL; p=0.005) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, evaluating surgical invasiveness using only intraoperative bleeding can result in the underestimation of actual surgical invasiveness. Even with single-segment PLIF, the amount of perioperative bleeding can vary depending on the way the posterior instrument is installed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8696064
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Korean Society of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86960642022-01-05 Surgical Invasiveness of Single-Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Perioperative Blood Loss in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Traditional Pedicle Screws, Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws, and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws Inoue, Tetsuji Mizutamari, Masaya Hatake, Kuniaki Asian Spine J Clinical Study STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the surgical invasiveness of single-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by comparing perioperative blood loss in PLIF with traditional pedicle screws (PS), cortical bone trajectory screws (CBT), and percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Intraoperative blood loss has often been used to evaluate surgical invasiveness. However, in patients undergoing spinal surgery, more blood loss is observed postoperatively than intraoperatively. Therefore, evaluating surgical invasiveness using only the intraoperative bleeding volume may result in considerable underestimation of the actual surgical invasiveness. METHODS: This study included patients who underwent single-segment PLIF between January 2012 and December 2017. In total, seven patients underwent PLIF with PS (PS-PLIF), nine underwent PLIF with CBT (CBT-PLIF), and 15 underwent PLIF with PPS (PPS-PLIF). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in terms of operation time or intraoperative bleeding between the PS-PLIF, CBT-PLIF, and PPS-PLIF groups. However, the postoperative drainage volume in the PPS-PLIF group (210.1 mL; range, 50–367 mL) was determined to be significantly lower than that in the PS-PLIF (416.7 mL; range, 260–760 mL; p=0.002) and CBT-PLIF (421.1 mL; range, 180–890 mL; p=0.006) groups. In addition, the total amount of intraoperative bleeding and postoperative drainage was found to be significantly lower in the PPS-PLIF group (362.8 mL; range, 145–637 mL) than in the PS-PLIF (639.6 mL; range, 285–1,000 mL; p=0.01) and CBT-PLIF (606.7 mL; range, 270–950 mL; p=0.005) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, evaluating surgical invasiveness using only intraoperative bleeding can result in the underestimation of actual surgical invasiveness. Even with single-segment PLIF, the amount of perioperative bleeding can vary depending on the way the posterior instrument is installed. Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2021-12 2020-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8696064/ /pubmed/33371623 http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0296 Text en Copyright © 2021 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Inoue, Tetsuji
Mizutamari, Masaya
Hatake, Kuniaki
Surgical Invasiveness of Single-Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Perioperative Blood Loss in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Traditional Pedicle Screws, Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws, and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws
title Surgical Invasiveness of Single-Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Perioperative Blood Loss in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Traditional Pedicle Screws, Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws, and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws
title_full Surgical Invasiveness of Single-Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Perioperative Blood Loss in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Traditional Pedicle Screws, Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws, and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws
title_fullStr Surgical Invasiveness of Single-Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Perioperative Blood Loss in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Traditional Pedicle Screws, Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws, and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws
title_full_unstemmed Surgical Invasiveness of Single-Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Perioperative Blood Loss in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Traditional Pedicle Screws, Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws, and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws
title_short Surgical Invasiveness of Single-Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Perioperative Blood Loss in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Traditional Pedicle Screws, Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws, and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws
title_sort surgical invasiveness of single-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparing perioperative blood loss in posterior lumbar interbody fusion with traditional pedicle screws, cortical bone trajectory screws, and percutaneous pedicle screws
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8696064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33371623
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0296
work_keys_str_mv AT inouetetsuji surgicalinvasivenessofsinglesegmentposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusioncomparingperioperativebloodlossinposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionwithtraditionalpediclescrewscorticalbonetrajectoryscrewsandpercutaneouspediclescrews
AT mizutamarimasaya surgicalinvasivenessofsinglesegmentposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusioncomparingperioperativebloodlossinposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionwithtraditionalpediclescrewscorticalbonetrajectoryscrewsandpercutaneouspediclescrews
AT hatakekuniaki surgicalinvasivenessofsinglesegmentposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusioncomparingperioperativebloodlossinposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionwithtraditionalpediclescrewscorticalbonetrajectoryscrewsandpercutaneouspediclescrews