scholarly journals Complication Risk in Primary and Revision Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparable Alternative to Conventional Open Techniques?

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 619-626
Author(s):  
Cole Bortz ◽  
Haddy Alas ◽  
Frank Segreto ◽  
Samantha R. Horn ◽  
Christopher Varlotta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study of prospective patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar fusion at a single academic institution. Objective: To assess differences in perioperative outcomes between primary and revision MIS (minimally invasive surgical) lumbar interbody fusion patients and compare with those undergoing corresponding open procedures. Methods: Patients ≥18 years old undergoing lumbar interbody fusion were grouped by surgical technique: MIS or open. Patients within each group were propensity score matched for comorbidities and levels fused. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and perioperative complication incidences were compared between primary and revision cases using means comparison tests, as appropriate. Results: Of the 214 lumbar interbody fusion patients included after propensity score matching, 44 (21%) cases were MIS, and 170 (79%) were open. For MIS patients, there were no significant differences between primary and revision cases in estimated blood loss (EBL; 344 vs 299 cm3, P = .682); however, primary cases had longer operative times (301 vs 246 minutes, P = .029). There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, readmission, and intraoperative or postoperative complications (all P > .05). For open patients, there were no differences between primary and revision cases in EBL ( P > .05), although revisions had longer operative times (331 vs 278 minutes, P = .018) and more postoperative complications (61.7% vs 23.8%, P < .001). MIS revision procedures were shorter than open revisions (182 vs 213 minutes, P = .197) with significantly less EBL (294 vs 965 cm3, P < .001), shorter inpatient and intensive care unit LOS, and fewer postoperative complications (all P < .05). Conclusions: Clinical outcomes of revision MIS lumbar interbody fusion were similar to those of primary surgery. Additionally, MIS techniques were associated with less EBL, shorter LOS, and fewer perioperative complications than corresponding open revisions.

scholarly journals Impact of local steroid application in a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 222-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany E. Haws ◽  
Benjamin Khechen ◽  
Dil V. Patel ◽  
Mundeep S. Bawa ◽  
Junyoung Ahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Inpatient Stay ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Acute Postoperative Pain ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Patient Reported

OBJECTIVELocal epidural steroid application may be associated with decreased pain and narcotic use in the immediate postoperative period following lumbar discectomy. However, local steroid delivery following lumbar fusion procedures has not been well characterized. This study aims to characterize the effect of local intraoperative depomedrol application on perioperative and postoperative outcomes following a single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).METHODSA prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was performed. A priori power analysis determined that 86 patients were needed to detect a difference of 1 point in the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score between groups. Ninety-three patients were randomized into depomedrol (DEPO) and no depomedrol (NODEPO) cohorts. Prior to surgical closure, DEPO patients received 1 ml depomedrol (80 mg) applied directly to the surgical site by using a Gelfoam carrier. NODEPO patients received 1 ml saline on the same Gelfoam carrier. Perioperative outcomes including acute postoperative pain and narcotic use were assessed for the duration of inpatient stay. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) questionnaires including VAS back and leg pain scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were administered preoperatively and at 6-week, 12-week, and 6-month follow-up. Outcomes for DEPO and NODEPO cohorts were compared using linear regression controlled for sex.RESULTSOf the 93 patients, 45 (48.4%) were randomized to DEPO and 48 (51.6%) to NODEPO. A greater percentage of DEPO patients were female (53.3% vs 27.1%, p = 0.010). There were no other significant differences in patient baseline characteristics. Similarly, operating time, estimated blood loss, and length of inpatient stay did not differ between cohorts. Patients in the DEPO cohort consumed fewer hourly narcotics on postoperative day 0 (5.3 vs 6.3 oral morphine equivalents/hour, p = 0.034). However, no differences in acute postoperative pain or total narcotics consumption were observed between groups. Preoperative VAS leg scores were statistically different between cohorts (p = 0.027). However, preoperative ODI and VAS back scores did not differ between groups. Additionally, DEPO and NODEPO groups experienced similar improvements in PROs at all postoperative time points.CONCLUSIONSLocal depomedrol use did not lead to decreases in acute postoperative pain or narcotics consumption after MIS TLIF. Additionally, local depomedrol was not associated with postoperative improvements in PROs. The findings of this randomized trial suggest that surgical and clinical outcomes following MIS TLIF may not be impacted by intraoperative application of depomedrol.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03308084 (clinicaltrials.gov)

scholarly journals Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. E8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Hwa Heo ◽  
Sang Kyu Son ◽  
Jin Hwa Eum ◽  
Choon Keun Park
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Fusion Surgery ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

OBJECTIVEMinimally invasive spine surgery can minimize damage to normal anatomical structures. Recently, fully endoscopic spine surgeries have been attempted for lumbar fusion surgery. In this study, the authors performed a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique as a minimally invasive surgery for lumbar fusion. The purpose of this study is to present the UBE technique of fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) and to analyze the clinical results.METHODSPatients who were to undergo single-level fusion surgery from L3–4 to L5–S1 were enrolled. Two channels (endoscopic portal and working portal) were used for endoscopic lumbar fusion surgery. All patients underwent follow-up for more than 12 months. Demographic characteristics, diagnosis, operative time, and estimated blood loss were evaluated. MRI was performed on postoperative Day 2. Clinical evaluations (visual analog scale [VAS] for the leg and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] scores) were performed preoperatively and during the follow-up period.RESULTSA total of 69 patients (24 men and 45 women) were enrolled in this study. The mean follow-up period was 13.5 months. Postoperative MRI revealed optimal direct neural decompression after fully endoscopic fusion surgery. VAS and ODI scores significantly improved after the surgery. There was no postoperative neurological deterioration.CONCLUSIONSFully endoscopic LIF using the UBE technique may represent an alternative minimally invasive LIF surgery for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to validate the clinical and radiological results of this surgery.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via a novel tubular retractor

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 030006052092009
Author(s):  
Yan Wang ◽  
Yaqing Zhang ◽  
Fanli Chong ◽  
Yue Zhou ◽  
Bo Huang
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fatty Infiltration ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid Leakage ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Multifidus Muscle ◽  
Tubular Retractor ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Objective To assess the feasibility and clinical results of microscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) using a novel tapered tubular retractor that preserves the multifidus. Method A total of 122 patients underwent MIS-TLIF using a tapered tubular retractor system from March 2016 to August 2017. Perioperative parameters and follow-up outcomes were reviewed. Results The follow-up period was 23.95 ± 1.43 months. The operative time averaged 130.48 ± 34.44 minutes. The estimated blood loss was 114.10 ± 96.70 mL. The mean time until ambulation was 16.33 ± 6.29 hours. The average visual analogue scale (leg/waist) and Oswestry Disability Index scores (preoperative to last follow-up) improved from 4.93 ± 2.68/3.74 ± 2.28 to 0.34 ± 0.77/0.64 ± 0.74 and from 59.09% ± 22.34 to 17.04% ± 8.49, respectively. At the last follow-up, 98.36% of the patients achieved solid fusion. Cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in two cases. The asymptote of the surgeon’s learning curve occurred at the 25th case. There were no significant differences between the preoperative qualitative and quantitative analyses of multifidus muscle fatty infiltration and those at the final follow-up. Conclusion MIS-TLIF can be performed safely and effectively using this tapered tubular retractor system, which helps preserve the multifidus.

scholarly journals Early Outcome of Liver Resections in Octogenarians

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
RS Bhandari ◽  
G Riddiough ◽  
V Muralidharan ◽  
C Christophi
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Liver Resection ◽  
Liver Metastasis ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Liver Resections ◽  
Rehabilitation Centers ◽  
High Dependency ◽  
Grade Ii

Background Reports on safety and feasibility of liver resection in patients 80 years and older are very limited.Objective Here, we intend to analyze the perioperative outcomes of liver resections in octogenarians performed at a single tertiary level teaching hospital over a ten years period.Method Retrospective review of the medical records (between 2004 to 2014) of patients of the defined age group was performed. Clinicopathological features, indications, extent of resections, intraoperative parameters, postoperative complications and final outcome were analyzed. Findings were compared with similar studies published in literature.Result Total 19 (11 male, 8 female, maximum age 85 years) patients of the study group underwent liver resection during the defined period. Commonest indication was colorectal liver metastasis (9 patients). One patient had pancreaticodudenectomy for periampullary malignancy four years prior to present with liver metastasis and subsequently had liver resection for recurrence of disease. Except one, all had open surgery. Types of resection ranged from sub segmental to major right (8 patients) and left (1 patient) hepatectomy. Total 3 (27%) out of 11 patients on whom drain was not placed required radiological drainage of abdominal collection. One patient developed liver abscess postoperatively and was also successfully drained under radiological guidance. Only 2 (10.5%) had prolonged Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay and remaining patients were discharged to ward after 24 hrs of observation in high dependency/Intensive care unit. Median hospital stay was 11 days. Postoperative complications were 3 of grade II, 4 of grade IIIa, 1 of IIIb and 2 of IVa. Total 9 patients were discharged to rehabilitation centers and remaining 10 could be discharged home. There was 0% mortality.Conclusion In appropriately selected cases, when performed in specialized tertiary centers excellent perioperative outcomes of liver resections can be achieved even in patients of 80 years of age and above.Kathmandu University Medical Journal Vol.13(1) 2015; 19-23

303 Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Randomized Study

Neurosurgery ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (CN_suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 263-264
Author(s):  
Anthony Michael DiGiorgio ◽  
Gabriel Claudiu Tender
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Oral Antibiotic ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Abstract INTRODUCTION Symptomatic spondylolisthesis patients may benefit from surgical decompression and stabilization. The standard (S) technique is a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Newer, minimally invasive (MI) techniques seem to provide similar results with less morbidity. However, prospective studies comparing S versus MI TLIF are rare. METHODS Patients with at least 6 months of symptoms and image-confirmed low-grade spondylolisthesis were enrolled, at a single academic institution, between 2011 and 2015. The patients were randomized to either S or MI TLIF. The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement at 1 year. Secondary outcome measures included length of operation, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, and fusion rates at 1 year. Complications were also recorded. RESULTS >Forty patients were enrolled in each group. There was no crossover between groups. The age was 50.12 +/−11.09 years in the S TLIF group and 51.3 +/−9.36 years in the MI TLIF group. The mean operative time and estimated blood loss in the S versus MI TLIF group were 297 +/−101 versus 323 +/−85 minutes and 417 +/−211 versus 351 +/−198 ml, respectively. There were 4 transfusions in the S TLIF and 3 transfusions in the MI TLIF group. The patients were discharged after surgery at 4.12 +/−0.88 days for the S TLIF group and 1.92 +/−0.52 days for the MI TLIF group. The ODI improved from 37 +/−6 to 11 +/−6 in the S TLIF group (ODI difference: 26 +/−7) and from 38 +/−7 to 11 +/−6 in the MI TLIF group (ODI difference: 26 +/−8). In both groups, the fusion was considered solid (Grade I) in 36 (90%) and partial (Grade II) in 4 (10%) patients at 1 year. There were no reoperations for pseudarthrosis or any other postoperative complication. There were 2 superficial wound infections in the standard TLIF group, which resolved with oral antibiotic treatment alone. CONCLUSION The standard and minimally invasive TLIF in patients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis provided similar clinical and radiological outcomes at 1 year. The patients undergoing MI TLIF had a shorter hospital stay. Both surgical techniques yielded good results at 1 year.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document