117. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion increases late-term rates of pseudarthrosis versus open approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. S57-S58
Author(s):  
Daniel Coban ◽  
Stuart Changoor ◽  
Conor J. Dunn ◽  
Michael Pompliano ◽  
Kumar Sinha ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 2857-2863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Rodríguez-Vela ◽  
Antonio Lobo-Escolar ◽  
Eduardo Joven ◽  
Javier Muñoz-Marín ◽  
Antonio Herrera ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 100053
Author(s):  
Daniel Coban ◽  
Stuart Changoor ◽  
Conor Dunn ◽  
Michael Pompliano ◽  
Kumar Sinha ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregor Rečnik ◽  
Milko Milčič ◽  
Samo Karl Fokter ◽  
Nino Mirnik ◽  
Andrej Moličnik ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundLumbar 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. MethodsSixty-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. ResultsStatistically 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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Mladen Djurasovic ◽  
Jeffrey L. Gum ◽  
Charles H. Crawford ◽  
Kirk Owens ◽  
Morgan Brown ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEThe midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) using cortical screw fixation is a novel, minimally invasive procedure that may offer enhanced recovery over traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Little information is available regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of the MIDLIF over conventional TLIF. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive MIDLIF with open TLIF.METHODSFrom a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database, a consecutive series of patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions was identified and propensity matched to patients undergoing TLIF based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and levels fused. Direct costs at 1 year were collected, including costs associated with the index surgical visit as well as costs associated with readmission. Improvement in health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D and SF-6D.RESULTSOf 214 and 181 patients undergoing MIDLIF and TLIF, respectively, 33 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. Variable direct costs at 1 year were $2493 lower in the MIDLIF group than in the open TLIF group (mean $15,867 vs $17,612, p = 0.073). There was no difference in implant (p = 0.193) or biologics (p = 0.145) cost, but blood utilization (p = 0.015), operating room supplies (p < 0.001), hospital room and board (p < 0.001), pharmacy (p = 0.010), laboratory (p = 0.004), and physical therapy (p = 0.009) costs were all significantly lower in the MIDLIF group. Additionally, the mean length of stay was decreased for MIDLIF as well (3.21 vs 4.02 days, p = 0.05). The EQ-5D gain at 1 year was 0.156 for MIDLIF and 0.141 for open TLIF (p = 0.821). The SF-6D gain at 1 year was 0.071 for MIDLIF and 0.057 for open TLIF (p = 0.551).CONCLUSIONSCompared with patients undergoing traditional open TLIF, those undergoing MIDLIF have similar 1-year gains in health-related quality of life, with total direct costs that are $2493 lower. Although the findings were not statistically significant, minimally invasive MIDLIF showed improved cost-effectiveness at 1 year compared with open TLIF.


2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 88-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Bakhsheshian ◽  
Ryan Khanna ◽  
Winward Choy ◽  
Cort D. Lawton ◽  
Alex T. Nixon ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document