Early benefits of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with the traditional open procedure
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Lumbar interbody fusion is a standard operative procedure in orthopedic spine surgery. Morphological and functional changes in the multifidus muscle after an open procedure have led to the development of a minimally invasive technique, after which no such muscle changes were observed.
Methods
Sixty-four patients, with clinical and radiological criteria for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were enrolled in our prospective randomized study between December 2011 and March 2014. They were randomized into two groups: open approach (33 patients) vs. minimally invasive approach (31 patients); one patient was excluded from each group due to postoperative complications. Independent samples T-test was used to compare average values of increase in creatin kinase (CK), which is an enzymatic marker of muscle injury, average surgical time, loss of blood during and after surgery, back pain according to the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and day of discharge from the hospital.
Results
Statistically important (P< 0.001) lower blood loss (188 ml vs. 527 ml total), less CK increase (15 ukat/L vs. 29 ukat/L), lower VAS score after surgery (7.3 vs. 8.7) and earlier discharge from the hospital (3.5 days vs. 5.2 days) were observed in the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion group. No significant difference in average surgical time was recorded.
Conclusions
Our results suggest, that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion causes is associated with less muscle damage, lower blood loss, less post surgical pain and faster early rehabilitation, which is in accordance with previous studies.
Downloads
References
Harms J, Rolinger H (1982). A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of sponylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120: 343-7.
Harms J, Rolinger H (1982). A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of sponylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120: 343-7.
ShunWu F, ZhiJun H, FengDong Z, et al (2010). Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 19: 316-24.
Kim CW (2010). Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 35: S281-6.
Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002). Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49: 499-517.
Karikari IO, Isaacs RE (2010). Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. A review of techniques and outcomes. Spine 35: S294-301
Recnik G, Košak R, Vengust R (2013). Influencing segmental balance in isthmic spondylolisthesis using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(5): 246-51.
Wang HL, Lu FZ, Jiang JY, et al (2011). Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J 124(23): 3868-74.
Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, et al (2006). Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech 19: 77-86.
Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L, et al (1993). Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine 18(5): 575-81.
Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al (2010). Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 19: 1780-4.
Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, et al (2011). Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 24(8): 479-84.
Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, et al (2012). Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neurosurg 78 (1-2): 178-84.
Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee SW, et al (2009). Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 18 (11): 1637-43.
Parker SL, Adamson TE, McGirtMJ, et al (2014). Rate of symptomatic adjacent segment disease after minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg 61 Suppl 1:210. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000452427.06799.88.
The Author transfers to the Publisher (Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal) all economic copyrights following form Article 22 of the Slovene Copyright and Related Rights Act (ZASP), including the right of reproduction, the right of distribution, the rental right, the right of public performance, the right of public transmission, the right of public communication by means of phonograms and videograms, the right of public presentation, the right of broadcasting, the right of rebroadcasting, the right of secondary broadcasting, the right of communication to the public, the right of transformation, the right of audiovisual adaptation and all other rights of the author according to ZASP.
The aforementioned rights are transferred non-exclusively, for an unlimited number of editions, for the term of the statutory
The Author can make use of his work himself or transfer subjective rights to others only after 3 months from date of first publishing in the journal Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal.
The Publisher (Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal) has the right to transfer the rights, acquired parties without explicit consent of the Author.
The Author consents that the Article be published under the Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0 (attribution-non-commercial) or comparable licence.
