Cargando…

Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a new technology that is mostly used for single-segment and unilateral lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to introduce percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decomp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: He, Li-Ming, Li, Jia-Rui, Wu, Hao-Ran, Chang, Qiang, Guan, Xiao-Ming, Ma, Zhuo, Feng, Hao-Yu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9174668/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35693306
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.915522
_version_ 1784722288976855040
author He, Li-Ming
Li, Jia-Rui
Wu, Hao-Ran
Chang, Qiang
Guan, Xiao-Ming
Ma, Zhuo
Feng, Hao-Yu
author_facet He, Li-Ming
Li, Jia-Rui
Wu, Hao-Ran
Chang, Qiang
Guan, Xiao-Ming
Ma, Zhuo
Feng, Hao-Yu
author_sort He, Li-Ming
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a new technology that is mostly used for single-segment and unilateral lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to introduce percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the efficacy by comparing it with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the open PLIF group. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared to evaluate the safety of PE-PLIF with ULBD. The visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively were compared to evaluate clinical efficacy. Preoperative and postoperative imaging data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation. RESULTS: No differences in baseline data were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operation time in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group (221.2 ± 32.9 min) was significantly longer than that in the PLIF group (138.4 ± 25.7 min) (p < 0.05), and the estimated blood loss and postoperative hospitalization were lower than those of the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05), but the postoperative VAS back pain score in the PE-PLIF group was significantly lower than that in the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The excellent and good rates in both groups were 96.4% according to MacNab’s criteria. The disc height and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal were significantly improved in the two groups after surgery (p < 0.05), with no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The fusion rates in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the PLIF group were 89.3% and 92.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, the cage subsidence rates were 14.3% and 17.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, and the lumbar spondylolisthesis reduction rates were 92.72 ± 6.39% and 93.54 ± 5.21%, respectively (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results from this study indicate that ULBD can be successfully performed during PE-PLIF, and the combined procedure is a safe and reliable treatment method for lumbar spondylolisthesis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9174668
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91746682022-06-09 Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis He, Li-Ming Li, Jia-Rui Wu, Hao-Ran Chang, Qiang Guan, Xiao-Ming Ma, Zhuo Feng, Hao-Yu Front Surg Surgery BACKGROUND: Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a new technology that is mostly used for single-segment and unilateral lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to introduce percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the efficacy by comparing it with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the open PLIF group. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared to evaluate the safety of PE-PLIF with ULBD. The visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively were compared to evaluate clinical efficacy. Preoperative and postoperative imaging data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation. RESULTS: No differences in baseline data were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operation time in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group (221.2 ± 32.9 min) was significantly longer than that in the PLIF group (138.4 ± 25.7 min) (p < 0.05), and the estimated blood loss and postoperative hospitalization were lower than those of the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05), but the postoperative VAS back pain score in the PE-PLIF group was significantly lower than that in the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The excellent and good rates in both groups were 96.4% according to MacNab’s criteria. The disc height and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal were significantly improved in the two groups after surgery (p < 0.05), with no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The fusion rates in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the PLIF group were 89.3% and 92.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, the cage subsidence rates were 14.3% and 17.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, and the lumbar spondylolisthesis reduction rates were 92.72 ± 6.39% and 93.54 ± 5.21%, respectively (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results from this study indicate that ULBD can be successfully performed during PE-PLIF, and the combined procedure is a safe and reliable treatment method for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9174668/ /pubmed/35693306 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.915522 Text en Copyright © 2022 He, Li, Wu, Chang, Guan, Ma and Feng. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
He, Li-Ming
Li, Jia-Rui
Wu, Hao-Ran
Chang, Qiang
Guan, Xiao-Ming
Ma, Zhuo
Feng, Hao-Yu
Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
title Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
title_full Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
title_fullStr Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
title_full_unstemmed Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
title_short Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
title_sort percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression vs. open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9174668/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35693306
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.915522
work_keys_str_mv AT heliming percutaneousendoscopicposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionwithunilaterallaminotomyforbilateraldecompressionvsopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesis
AT lijiarui percutaneousendoscopicposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionwithunilaterallaminotomyforbilateraldecompressionvsopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesis
AT wuhaoran percutaneousendoscopicposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionwithunilaterallaminotomyforbilateraldecompressionvsopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesis
AT changqiang percutaneousendoscopicposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionwithunilaterallaminotomyforbilateraldecompressionvsopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesis
AT guanxiaoming percutaneousendoscopicposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionwithunilaterallaminotomyforbilateraldecompressionvsopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesis
AT mazhuo percutaneousendoscopicposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionwithunilaterallaminotomyforbilateraldecompressionvsopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesis
AT fenghaoyu percutaneousendoscopicposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionwithunilaterallaminotomyforbilateraldecompressionvsopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesis