Clinical efficacy of MIS-TLIF assisted with microscope in treatment of lumbar single-segment degenerative diseases

doi:10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2020.04.017

Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy ›› 2020, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (4) : 455-460. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2020.04.017

CHEN Peng-cheng¹, ZHONG Hai-lin², WANG Le², ZHANG Hai-ying³, LIU Yi-heng^1,2, LIAN Xiao-feng²

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Objective　To investigate the safety and efficacy of microscope-assisted minimal invasive posterior transforminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of single segmental degenerative diseases of lumbar vertebrae.　Methods　Clinical data of 42 patients (minimally invasive group) treated with microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF and 50 patients (traditional group) treated with PLIF were retrospectively analyzed. At the same time perioperative parameters, imaging and clinical efficacy of the two groups were compared.　Results　All patients were followed up, and 1 case of dorsal root ganglion irritation was found in the minimally invasive group. One case of dural tear and one case of superficial wound infection occurred in the traditional group. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). The incision length, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative hospital stay, creatine kinase level of 1 day after surgery, ODI score of 3 months after surgery, VAS score of 1 day after surgery and 3 months after surgery in the minimally invasive group were all lower than that of the traditional group (P<0.05). The operation time and time of intraoperative X-ray irradiation in the minimally invasive group were longer than that of the traditional group (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference between the ODI scores and VAS scores of 6 months after the operation and the last follow-up (P>0.05). At the last follow-up, there was no statistical difference in the rate of bone graft fusion (P>0.05).　Conclusions　Compared with PLIF surgery, microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF has the advantages of less trauma and satisfactory short-term efficacy in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Key words

Lumbar degenerative diseases;　Microscope;　Minimally invasive surgery / Transforaminal interbody fusion

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

CHEN Peng-cheng, ZHONG Hai-lin, WANG Le, ZHANG Hai-ying, LIU Yi-heng, LIAN Xiao-feng. Clinical efficacy of MIS-TLIF assisted with microscope in treatment of lumbar single-segment degenerative diseases[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy. 2020, 38(4): 455-460 https://doi.org/10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2020.04.017

References

[1] 李明, 种衍学, 宋将, 等. 腰椎椎体间融合不同手术入路及并发症究[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2017, 25(13): 1210-1213.
[2] Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2006, 19(2): 77-86.
[3] Kevin TF, Holly LT, Schwender JD, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion[J]. Spine, 2003, 28(15 Suppl): S26-35.
[4] Cloward RB, Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res,1985, (193): 16-19.

[5] Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, et al. Adding posterior lumbar interbodyfusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 22(2): 210-220.　

[6] Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, et al. Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion[J]. Spine J, 2008, 8 (4): 570-577.
[7] Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(14):1329-1338.
[8] Okuda S, Miyauchi A, Oda T, et al. Surgical complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with total facetectomy in 251 patients[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2006, 4(4): 304-309.
[9] Vazan M, Gempt J, Meyer B, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature[J]. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2017, 159(6): 1137-1146.
[10]Masrouha KZ, Musallam KM, Rosendaal FR, et al. Preoperative pneumonia and postoperative venous thrombosis: a cohort study of 427,656 patients undergoing major general surgery[J]. World J Surg, 2016, 40(6): 1288-1294.
[11] Burneikiene S, Nelson EL, Mason A, et al. Complications in patients undergoing combined transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation with deformity correction for degenerative scoliosis and spinal stenosis[J]. Surg Neurol Int, 2012, 3: 25.
[12] Yang Y, Zhang LM, Liu B, et al. Hidden and overall haemorrhage following minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion[J]. J Orthop Traumatol, 2017, 18(4): 395-400.
[13] Meyer SA, Wu JC, Mummaneni PV. Mini-open and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique review[J]. Semin Spine Surg, 2011, 23(1): 45-50.
[14] Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y,et al. An analysis of the differences
in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion[J]. J Neurosurg Spine 2010, 12(6): 694-699.
[15] Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, et al. A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion[J]. Spine J, 2014, 14(8): 1694-1701.
[16] Zhou Y, Zhang C, Wang J, et al. Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar decompression, interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation-a report of 42 cases[J]. Chin J Traumatol, 2008, 11(4): 225-231.
[17] Sharif S, Afsar A. Learning curve and minimally invasive spine surgery[J]. World Neurosurg, 2018, 119: 472-478.