Cargando…

Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: Assessment of difference in clinical and computer tomographic outcomes between the 2 cohorts. METHODS: Computer tomographic evaluation by Bridwell’s grade, Kim’s stage, Kim’s subsidence grade and clinical evaluation by VAS, ODI and McNab’s cr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Hyeun Sung, Wu, Pang Hung, Kim, Ji Yeon, Lee, Jun Hyung, Lee, Yeon Jin, Kim, Dae Hwan, Jeon, Jun Bok, Jang, Il-Tae
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9972267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35649510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568221994796
_version_ 1784898284841598976
author Kim, Hyeun Sung
Wu, Pang Hung
Kim, Ji Yeon
Lee, Jun Hyung
Lee, Yeon Jin
Kim, Dae Hwan
Lee, Jun Hyung
Jeon, Jun Bok
Jang, Il-Tae
author_facet Kim, Hyeun Sung
Wu, Pang Hung
Kim, Ji Yeon
Lee, Jun Hyung
Lee, Yeon Jin
Kim, Dae Hwan
Lee, Jun Hyung
Jeon, Jun Bok
Jang, Il-Tae
author_sort Kim, Hyeun Sung
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: Assessment of difference in clinical and computer tomographic outcomes between the 2 cohorts. METHODS: Computer tomographic evaluation by Bridwell’s grade, Kim’s stage, Kim’s subsidence grade and clinical evaluation by VAS, ODI and McNab’s criteria on both cohorts. RESULTS: 33 levels of Endo-TLIF and 22 levels of TLIF were included, with a mean follow up of 14.3 (10-24) and 22.9 (13-30) months respectively. Both Endo-TLIF and TLIF achieved significant improvement of pain and ODI at post-operative 4 week, 3 months and at final follow up with VAS 4.39 ± 0.92, 5.27 ± 1.16 and 5.73 ± 1.21in Endo-TLIF and 4.55 ± 1.16, 5.05 ± 1.11 and 5.50 ± 1.20 in TLIF respectively and ODI at post-operative 1 week, 3 months and final follow up were 43.15 ± 6.57, 49.27 ± 8.24 and 51.73 ± 9.09 in Endo-TLIF and 41.73 ± 7.98, 46.18± 8.46 and 49.09 ± 8.98 in TLIF respectively, P < 0.05. Compared to TLIF, Endo-TLIF achieved better VAS with 0.727 ± 0.235 at 3 months and 0.727 ± 0.252 at final follow up and better ODI with 3.88 ± 1.50 at 3months and 3.42 ± 1.63 at final follow up, P < 0.05. At 6 months radiological evaluation comparison of the Endo-TLIF and TLIF showed significant with more favorable fusion rate in Endo-TLIF of −0.61 ± 0.12 at 6 months and −0.49 ± 0.12 at 1 year in Bridwell’s grading and 0.70 ± 0.15 at 6 months and 0.56 ± 0.14 at 1 year in Kim’s stage.There is less subsidence of 0.606 ± 0.18 at 6 months and −0.561 ± 0.20 at 1 year of Kim’s subsidence grade, P < 0.05. CONCLUSION: Application of single level uniportal endoscopic posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion achieved better clinical outcomes and fusion rate with less subsidence than microscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in mid-term evaluation for our cohorts of patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9972267
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99722672023-03-01 Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Kim, Hyeun Sung Wu, Pang Hung Kim, Ji Yeon Lee, Jun Hyung Lee, Yeon Jin Kim, Dae Hwan Lee, Jun Hyung Jeon, Jun Bok Jang, Il-Tae Global Spine J Original Articles STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: Assessment of difference in clinical and computer tomographic outcomes between the 2 cohorts. METHODS: Computer tomographic evaluation by Bridwell’s grade, Kim’s stage, Kim’s subsidence grade and clinical evaluation by VAS, ODI and McNab’s criteria on both cohorts. RESULTS: 33 levels of Endo-TLIF and 22 levels of TLIF were included, with a mean follow up of 14.3 (10-24) and 22.9 (13-30) months respectively. Both Endo-TLIF and TLIF achieved significant improvement of pain and ODI at post-operative 4 week, 3 months and at final follow up with VAS 4.39 ± 0.92, 5.27 ± 1.16 and 5.73 ± 1.21in Endo-TLIF and 4.55 ± 1.16, 5.05 ± 1.11 and 5.50 ± 1.20 in TLIF respectively and ODI at post-operative 1 week, 3 months and final follow up were 43.15 ± 6.57, 49.27 ± 8.24 and 51.73 ± 9.09 in Endo-TLIF and 41.73 ± 7.98, 46.18± 8.46 and 49.09 ± 8.98 in TLIF respectively, P < 0.05. Compared to TLIF, Endo-TLIF achieved better VAS with 0.727 ± 0.235 at 3 months and 0.727 ± 0.252 at final follow up and better ODI with 3.88 ± 1.50 at 3months and 3.42 ± 1.63 at final follow up, P < 0.05. At 6 months radiological evaluation comparison of the Endo-TLIF and TLIF showed significant with more favorable fusion rate in Endo-TLIF of −0.61 ± 0.12 at 6 months and −0.49 ± 0.12 at 1 year in Bridwell’s grading and 0.70 ± 0.15 at 6 months and 0.56 ± 0.14 at 1 year in Kim’s stage.There is less subsidence of 0.606 ± 0.18 at 6 months and −0.561 ± 0.20 at 1 year of Kim’s subsidence grade, P < 0.05. CONCLUSION: Application of single level uniportal endoscopic posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion achieved better clinical outcomes and fusion rate with less subsidence than microscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in mid-term evaluation for our cohorts of patients. SAGE Publications 2022-06-01 2023-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9972267/ /pubmed/35649510 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568221994796 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 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
Kim, Hyeun Sung
Wu, Pang Hung
Kim, Ji Yeon
Lee, Jun Hyung
Lee, Yeon Jin
Kim, Dae Hwan
Lee, Jun Hyung
Jeon, Jun Bok
Jang, Il-Tae
Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
title Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
title_full Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
title_fullStr Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
title_short Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
title_sort retrospective case control study: clinical and computer tomographic fusion and subsidence evaluation for single level uniportal endoscopic posterolateral approach transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus microscopic minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9972267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35649510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568221994796
work_keys_str_mv AT kimhyeunsung retrospectivecasecontrolstudyclinicalandcomputertomographicfusionandsubsidenceevaluationforsingleleveluniportalendoscopicposterolateralapproachtransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionversusmicroscopicminimallyinvasivetransforaminalinterbodyfusion
AT wupanghung retrospectivecasecontrolstudyclinicalandcomputertomographicfusionandsubsidenceevaluationforsingleleveluniportalendoscopicposterolateralapproachtransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionversusmicroscopicminimallyinvasivetransforaminalinterbodyfusion
AT kimjiyeon retrospectivecasecontrolstudyclinicalandcomputertomographicfusionandsubsidenceevaluationforsingleleveluniportalendoscopicposterolateralapproachtransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionversusmicroscopicminimallyinvasivetransforaminalinterbodyfusion
AT leejunhyung retrospectivecasecontrolstudyclinicalandcomputertomographicfusionandsubsidenceevaluationforsingleleveluniportalendoscopicposterolateralapproachtransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionversusmicroscopicminimallyinvasivetransforaminalinterbodyfusion
AT leeyeonjin retrospectivecasecontrolstudyclinicalandcomputertomographicfusionandsubsidenceevaluationforsingleleveluniportalendoscopicposterolateralapproachtransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionversusmicroscopicminimallyinvasivetransforaminalinterbodyfusion
AT kimdaehwan retrospectivecasecontrolstudyclinicalandcomputertomographicfusionandsubsidenceevaluationforsingleleveluniportalendoscopicposterolateralapproachtransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionversusmicroscopicminimallyinvasivetransforaminalinterbodyfusion
AT leejunhyung retrospectivecasecontrolstudyclinicalandcomputertomographicfusionandsubsidenceevaluationforsingleleveluniportalendoscopicposterolateralapproachtransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionversusmicroscopicminimallyinvasivetransforaminalinterbodyfusion
AT jeonjunbok retrospectivecasecontrolstudyclinicalandcomputertomographicfusionandsubsidenceevaluationforsingleleveluniportalendoscopicposterolateralapproachtransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionversusmicroscopicminimallyinvasivetransforaminalinterbodyfusion
AT jangiltae retrospectivecasecontrolstudyclinicalandcomputertomographicfusionandsubsidenceevaluationforsingleleveluniportalendoscopicposterolateralapproachtransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionversusmicroscopicminimallyinvasivetransforaminalinterbodyfusion