Comparison of short-term effects of adopting transforaminal lumbar interbodyfusion and posterior lumbar interbodyfusion for treatment of single segment degenerative lumbar diseases
Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy ›› 2015, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (5) : 593-596.
Comparison of short-term effects of adopting transforaminal lumbar interbodyfusion and posterior lumbar interbodyfusion for treatment of single segment degenerative lumbar diseases
Objective To compare the effects of adopting LUXOR system-assisted minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods Clinical data about 34 patients with single segment degenerative lumbar disease who underwent MIS-TLIF in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative bedtime were recorded and compared with those of 30 patients with the same disease undergoing conventional open PLIF during the corresponding period. The back pain visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) score and imaging examination were performed before operation and during follow-up period for each patient. Results There was no significant difference in the gender, age, clinical diagnosis, lesion location, VAS and ODI scores before operation between the two groups (P>0.05). The operative time was longer in MIS-TLIF group than in PLIF group(P<0.05), and the intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative bedtime were lower in MIS-TLIF group than in PLIF group (P<0.01). The back pain VAS scores and ODI scores on 3rd and 6th month after surgery in MIS-TLIF group were lower in PLIF group (P<0.01) . Radiological follow-up imaging revealed good fusion 6 months after operation in all the patients. Conclusion MIS-TLIF has several advantages over conventional open PLIF, such as less intraoperative blood loss, milder muscle damage, and lighter back pain.
[1] 廖 辉, 李锋, 熊伟, 等. Wiltse入路和后正中入路治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效对比研究[J]. 骨科, 2013, 4(4):174-177.
[2] Harry N, Herkowitz, Steven R, et al. Rothman-Simeone The Spine[M]. 6th edition. Philadelphia, Elsevier, 2011:1012.
[3] Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Carreon LY, et al. Contemporary management of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis[J]. Orthop Clin North Am，2010, 41(2):183-191.
[4] 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，2010, 35(1):1329-1338.
[5] 郭乃铭，周 跃. 计算机辅助手术导航系统在脊柱外科手术中的应用进展[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志，2013, 21(8):787-789.
[6] Smith ZA, Fessler RG. Paradigm changes in spine surgery evolution of minimally invasive techniques[J]. Nat Rev Neurol，2012, 8(8):443-450.
[7] Lubansu A. Minimally invasive spine arthrodesis in degenerative spinal disorders[J]. Neurochirurgie， 2010, 56(1):14-22.
[8] Kim CW, Siemionow K, Anderson DG, et al. The current state of minimally invasive spine surgery[J]. Instr Course Lect，2011, 60(3):353-370.
[9] 肖波, 毛克亚, 王岩, 等. 直视下微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术的并发症分析[J]. 解放军医学院学报, 2013, 34(5):446-448.
[10]Arts M, Brand R, van der Kallen B, et al. Does minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery result in less muscle injury than conventional surgery? A randomized controlled trial[J]. Eur Spine J, 2011, 20(1):51-57.
[11]Fan SW, Zhao X, Zhao FD, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases[J]. Spine，2010, 35(8):1615-1620.
[12]周亮, 刘郑生, 毛克亚, 等. MIS-TLIF与PLIF治疗单节段退行性腰椎疾病的肌肉损伤比较[J]. 解放军医学杂志, 2013, 38(12):972-975.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
