scholarly journals Misdiagnosis of Hemothorax as Atelectasis After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Won Jun Seo
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Li ◽  
Kai Liu ◽  
Li Yang ◽  
DEGUO WANG

Abstract Background: Approximately 4-20% patients with degenerative lumbar diseases showed persistent pain after lumbar fusion surgery that may develop into failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), and this persistent pain may be related to the postoperative increased release of inflammatory mediators. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) can obviously reduce the intraoperative soft tissue trauma. The aim of this study is to investigate the persistent pain in the patients with degenerative lumbar diseases undergoing MIS-TLIF compared with conventional‑invasive TLIF. Material and methods: This study retrospectively included 146 patients (MIS-TLIF vs. conventional‑invasive TLIF: 56 vs. 90), and the incidence of persistent pain were evaluated. Furthermore, inflammation related markers in both blood and drainage fluid samples, including white blood cell (WBC) count, C-reactive protein (CRP), creatine kinase (CK), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and IL-1β, were tested before and after operation. Results: Significantly larger number of patients undergoing conventional‑invasive TLIF showed postoperative persistent pain compared to those undergoing MIS-TLIF (4/56, 7.1% vs. 20/90, 22.2%; P < 0.05). In both treatment groups, the patients with postoperative persistent pain showed increased IL-6 and IL-1β in drainage fluid, as well as increased IL-6 in blood samples (P < 0.05), and there is significant correlation between the inflammation markers in drainage fluid and the extent of postoperative persistent pain in patients with postoperative persistent pain (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Local inflammatory substance accumulation may be potential cause for postoperative persistent pain, and MIS-TLIF may reduce this inflammatory accumulation at the surgical site and subsequently reduce the risk of persistent pain.


2020 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 43-50
Author(s):  
Ganesha K. Thayaparan ◽  
Mark G. Owbridge ◽  
Matthew Linden ◽  
Robert G. Thompson ◽  
Philip M. Lewis ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document