scholarly journals Minimal Access Spinal Technologies (Mast) Fusion Procedures For The Treatment Of The Degenerative Lumbar Spine (A Part Of Multicentral Prospective Study)

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.H. Khoshab ◽  
P. Dumy ◽  
B. Kolarovszkl
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fluoroscopy Time ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Surgical Duration

Abstract A prospective multicentral observational study of minimally invasive fusion to treat degenerative lumbar disorders, and to report outcomes of one or two level minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MLIF) for degenerative lumbar disorders in a multi-center 1-year prospective study. We prospectively studied a group of 32 patients, mostly female 24 ( 75% female ), and 8 males ( 25%). They underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (mTLIF), 21 of them monosegmental and 11 bisegmental. Patients demographics, intraoperative data and complications were recorded. Time to first ambulation, time to study-defined recovery, surgical duration, blood loss, fluoroscopy time and adverse events were recorded. Visual analogue scale (VAS) of back and legs pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and health-related questionnaire (EQ-5D) were assessed preoperatively and at defined time points through 12 months postoperatively. Mean surgical duration, blood loss and intraoperative fluoroscopy time were 125 vs.175 minutes, 150 vs. 170 ml, and 105 vs. 145 seconds in one- and twolevel segments, respectively. Mean preoperative VAS back (6.5) and VAS leg (7.9) scores dropped significantly (p<0.0001) to 3.5 (2.6) and 2.1 (2.0) at discharge (6 weeks). At the end, this is the largest prospective multi-center observational study of MLIF to date, following routine local standard of practice and, MLIF demonstrated favourable clinical results with early and sustained improvement in patient reported outcomes and low major perioperative morbidity.

Patient-reported Quality of Life Following Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Indirect Decompression Using Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Spine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (18) ◽  
pp. E1172-E1178
Author(s):  
Hiroaki Nakashima ◽  
Tokumi Kanemura ◽  
Kotaro Satake ◽  
Kenyu Ito ◽  
Satoshi Tanaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Indirect Decompression

scholarly journals Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110164
Author(s):  
Elsayed Said ◽  
Mohamed E. Abdel-Wanis ◽  
Mohamed Ameen ◽  
Ali A. Sayed ◽  
Khaled H. Mosallam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: Arthrodesis has been a valid treatment option for spinal diseases, including spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterolateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion are amongst the most used fusion techniques. Previous reports comparing both methods have been contradictory. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish substantial evidence on which fusion method would achieve better outcomes. Methods: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes of interest between posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We extracted data on clinical outcome, complication rate, revision rate, fusion rate, operation time, and blood loss. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We retrieved 8 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, with a total of 616 patients (308 PLF, 308 PLIF). The results of our analysis revealed that patients who underwent PLIF had significantly higher fusion rates. No statistically significant difference was identified in terms of clinical outcomes, complication rates, revision rates, operation time or blood loss. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comparison between PLF and PLIF based on RCTs. Although PLIF had higher fusion rates, both fusion methods achieve similar clinical outcomes with equal complication rate, revision rate, operation time and blood loss at 1-year minimum follow-up.

Risk Factors for Poor Patient-Reported Quality of Life Outcomes After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Spine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (19) ◽  
pp. 1502-1510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Makino ◽  
Takashi Kaito ◽  
Hiroyasu Fujiwara ◽  
Hirotsugu Honda ◽  
Yusuke Sakai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Poor Patient ◽  
Quality Of Life Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported

Surgical Outcomes and adverse effects for Minimally Invasive versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Abdelsalam Wafa ◽  
Tameem Shafik Elkhateeb ◽  
Reda Shaaban Abdelhameed
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Abstract Background Minimal invasive techniques for lumbar interbody fusion is a novel surgical procedure developed to reduce approach-related morbidity associated with traditional open techniques. Objective To determine the clinical comparative effectiveness and adverse event rates of posterior minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to open transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF) for early and late outcomes by using the visual analogue scale for back pain (VAS–back) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data Sources Medline databases (PubMed, Medscape, ScienceDirect. EMF-Portal) and all materials available in the Internet till 2018. Data Extraction If the studies did not fulfill the inclusion criteria, they were excluded. Study quality assessment included whether ethical approval was gained, eligibility criteria specified, appropriate controls, and adequate information and defined assessment measures. Conclusion MIS techniques for lumbar interbody fusion is a safe alternative for classic open procedures but due to the limited number of the included RCTs, more well-designed multicenter RCTs with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up are still needed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of both techniques.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document