scholarly journals Cage or Pelvic Graft—Study on Bony Fusion of the Ventral Thoracic and Lumbar Spine in Traumatic Vertebral Fractures

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (8) ◽  
pp. 786
Author(s):  
Katharina Jäckle ◽  
Theresa Brix ◽  
Swantje Oberthür ◽  
Paul Jonathan Roch ◽  
Stephan Sehmisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Grafts ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Pelvic Bone ◽  
Anterior Fusion ◽  
Intervertebral Disc Space ◽  
Bony Fusion ◽  
Bone Fusion ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Significant Difference

Background and Objectives: Stabilization of the spine by cage implantation or autologous pelvic bone graft are surgical methods for the treatment of traumatic spine fractures. These methods serve to stably re-adjust the spine and to prevent late detrimental effects such as pain or increasing kyphosis. They both involve ventral interventions using interbody fusion to replace the intervertebral disc space between the vertebral bodies either by cages or autologous pelvic bone grafts. We examined which of these methods serves the patients better in terms of bone fusion and the long-term clinical outcome. Materials and Methods: Forty-six patients with traumatic fractures (12 cages; mean age: 54.08/34 pelvic bone grafts; mean age: 42.18) who received an anterior fusion in the thoracic or lumbar spine were included in the study. Postoperative X-ray images were evaluated, and fusion of the stabilized segment was inspected by two experienced spine surgeons. The time to discharge from hospital and gender differences were evaluated. Results: There was a significant difference of the bone fusion rate of patients with autologous pelvic bone grafts in favor of cage implantation (p = 0.0216). Also, the stationary phase of patients who received cage implantations was clearly shorter (17.50 days vs. 23.85 days; p = 0.0089). In addition, we observed a significant gender difference with respect to the bony fusion rate in favor of females treated with cage implantations (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Cage implantations after spinal fractures result in better bony fusion rates as compared to autologous pelvic bone grafts and a shorter stay of the patients in the hospital. Thus, we conclude that cage implantations rather than autologous pelvic bone grafts should be the preferred surgical treatment for stabilizing the spine after fracture.

Long-term Quality of Life after Fusion of the Ventral Thoracic and Lumbar Spine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina Jäckle ◽  
Dominik Saul ◽  
Swantje Oberthür ◽  
Paul Jonathan Roch ◽  
Stephan Sehmisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Bone Grafts ◽  
Pelvic Bone ◽  
Anterior Fusion ◽  
Surgical Methods

Abstract Background Cage implantations and autologous pelvic bone grafts are common surgical procedures to fuse the spine in cases of spinal disorders such as traumatic fractures or degenerative diseases. These surgical methods are designed to stably readjust the spine and to prevent late detrimental effects such as pain or increasing kyphosis. Benefits of these surgical interventions have been evaluated, but the long-term well-being of patients after the respective treatments has not yet been examined. This study was designed to evaluate the clinical outcome for patients who received iliac crest or cage implantations. Material and Methods Forty-six patients with traumatic fractures after they obtained an anterior fusion in the thoracic or lumbar spine (12 cages; mean age: 54.08 years; 34 pelvic bone grafts; mean age: 42.18 years) were asked to participate in the survey using a precast questionnaire according the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Spine Score. Twenty-nine of them provided the data requested. Results Evaluation of the VAS scores of the patients, reporting at least 1 year after the surgery, revealed that cage implantations led to significantly better results with respect to all aspects of their daily life such as pain sensing, capability to undertake physical activities and exercise as compared with patients with autologous pelvic bone graft. Patients with autologous pelvic bone graft treatment reported a particularly poor overall satisfaction level concerning their long-term well-being. Conclusions Patients with cage implantation reported a higher degree of long-term well-being. The data provide evidence for a positive impact on the postsurgery quality of life after cage implantation.

scholarly journals Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanthika Wasinpongwanich ◽  
Tanawin Nopsopon ◽  
Krit Pongpirul
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Spine Diseases

Purpose Surgical treatment is mandatory in some patients with lumbar spine diseases. To obtain spine fusion, many operative techniques were developed with different fusion rates and clinical results. This study aimed to collect randomized controlled trial (RCT) data to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases. Methods A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases was searched for studies up to 13 February 2020. The meta-analysis was done using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval of fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complication in TLIF and other techniques for lumbar diseases. Results The literature search identified 3,682 potential studies, 15 RCTs (915 patients) were met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to other techniques, TLIF had slightly lower fusion rate (RR=0.84 [95% CI 0.72, 0.97], p=0.02, I2=0.0%) at 1-year follow-up while there was no difference on fusion rate at 2-year follow up (RR=1.06 [95% CI 0.96, 1.18], p=0.27, I2=69.0%). The estimated risk ratio of total adverse events (RR=0.90 [95% CI 0.59, 1.38], p=0.63, I2=0.0%) and revision rate (RR=0.78 [95%CI 0.34, 1.79], p=0.56, I2=39.0%) showed no difference. TLIF had approximately half an hour more operative time than other techniques (MD=31.88 [95% CI 5.33, 58.44], p=0.02, I2=92.0%). There was no significant difference between TLIF and other techniques in terms of the blood loss, and clinical outcomes. Conclusions Besides fusion rate at 1-year follow-up and operative time, our study demonstrated similar outcomes of TLIF with other techniques for lumbar diseases in regard to fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complications.

scholarly journals Cajas intersomáticas lumbares: ¿medios de fusión o solo espaciadores?

10.15417/211 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 74
Author(s):  
Diego Nicolas Flores Kanter ◽  
Alberto Javier Jabif ◽  
Pablo Nicolás Ortiz
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Title Page ◽  
Anterior Fusion ◽  
Surgical Fusion ◽  
Circumferential Fusion ◽  
Spine Pathology

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p>RESUMEN</p><p><span>Introducción: </span><span>La fusión quirúrgica de la columna lumbar es un método muy utilizado para el tratamiento de la inestabilidad segmentaria lumbar dolorosa. En la actualidad, las dos técnicas de fusión instrumentada más utilizadas son la fusión posterolateral con tornillos pediculares y la fusión circunferencial mediante asociación de caja intersomática. Si bien hay evidencia de que la asociación de dispositivos intersomáticos aumenta la tasa de fusión, la mayoría de los estudios no discriminan si esta se produce solo de forma posterolateral o si se asocia una fusión anterior. El objetivo de este trabajo es determinar si existe fusión ósea real a nivel de las cajas intersomáticas o si estas actúan solo como espaciadores.</span></p><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Materiales y métodos: </span><span>Se analizaron 28 pacientes con patología de la columna lumbar sometidos a artrodesis lumbar circunferencial en un solo nivel entre mayo de 2007 y enero de 2012, mediante tomografía computarizada posquirúrgica para valorar la presencia o no de artrodesis anterior. Se efectuó un estudio de valor terapéutico, descriptivo, de observación (nivel de evidencia IV); mediante evaluación estadística se realizó un análisis de frecuencias para describir la proporción de casos con fusión anterior.</span></p></div></div><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Resultados: </span><span>Se detectó una tasa de fusión del 92,86% y falta de fusión radiológica anterior en el 7,14% de los pacientes.</span></p><p><span>Conclusiones: </span><span>Hay una alta tasa de fusión anterior a nivel de las cajas intersomáticas; de este modo, se demuestra que dichos dispositivos actúan como medios de fusión y no solo como espaciadores.</span></p><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p>PALABRAS CLAVE: Cajas intersomáticas. Fusión lumbar intersomática transforaminal. Tomografía computarizada.</p><p> </p><p>LUMBAR INTERBODY CAGES: FUSING MEANS OR ONLY SPACERS?</p></div></div><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Background: </span><span>Surgical fusion of the lumbar spine is a frequently used method for the treatment of painful lumbar segmental instability; currently the two instrumented fusion techniques most commonly used are posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws, and circumferential fusion by association of interbody cages. Although evidence shows that the association of intersomatic devices increases the fusion rate, most studies do not discriminate if this fusion occurs only posterolaterally, or an anterior fusion also occurs. The aim of this study is to determine if there is a true bone fusion at the level of interbody cages or if they act only as spacers.</span></p><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Methods: </span><span>We analyzed 28 patients with lumbar spine pathology surgically treated with one level circumferential lumbar fusion from May 2007 to January 2012, using post-surgical computed tomography, to assess the presence or absence of anterior arthrodesis. A therapeutic value, descriptive, observational study was conducted (evidence level IV); by statistical evaluation, frequency analysis was performed to describe the proportion of cases with anterior fusion.</span></p><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Results: </span><span>The fusion rate reached 92.86%; while there was no anterior radiological fusion in 7.14% of patients. </span></p><p><span>Conclusions: </span><span>There is a high rate of anterior fusion at the level of the interbody cages, thus demonstrating that these devices act as fusing means and not only as anterior spacers.</span></p><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>KEY WORDS: Interbody cages; Transforaminal lumbsar interbody fusion. Computed tomography. </span></p></div></div></div><p><span><br /></span></p></div></div></div><p><span><br /></span></p></div></div></div><p><span><br /></span></p></div></div></div><p> </p></div></div><p><span><br /></span></p></div></div></div><p><span><br /></span></p></div></div></div><p> </p></div></div></div>

scholarly journals Unilateral versus bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation associated with interbody fusion in degenerative Lumbar spine diseases

QJM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E E A Emara ◽  
S H Morad ◽  
A R Farghaly ◽  
O E Ahmed ◽  
M K Khalil
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Bilateral Group ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Lumbar interbody fusion is a recognized surgical technique in treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Interbody fusion supplemented with pedicle screw fixation has several advantages over posterolateral fusion and has been advocated to improve fusion rates and clinical outcomes. Interbody fusion places the bone graft in the loadbearing position of the anterior and middle spinal columns thereby enhancing the potential for fusion. In addition, the interbody space has more vascularity than the posterolateral space, also increasing the potential for a solid fusion mass to form. Aim of the Work to assess safety and efficacy of unilateral pedicle screw fixation associated with interbody fusion in Lumbar spine degenerative diseases and to evaluate and compare outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation associated with interbody fusion in lumbar spine degenerative diseases, as regard the operation time, bleeding, postoperative stay, cost, and the clinical and biomechanical results. Material & Methods This observational prospective comparative study of the 2 groups who were operated either unilateral (Group A /25 patients) or bilateral (Group B/25 patients) pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion was done. Patients were followed up for 1, 6, 12 months. This study occurred at Ain Shams University hospitals. Results No differences were observed between the two groups with respect to demographic data. The patients of the two groups had significant improvement in functional outcome compared to preoperatively, except in early postoperative VAS back and ODI in unilateral group which is better than bilateral group. However, no significant difference noticed in the further follow up. There was no significant difference comparing fusion rate, complication rate and duration of hospital stay between the two groups at postoperative follow-up. There was significantly less blood loss, shorter postoperative pain killer use and significantly shorter operation time in the unilateral PS fixation group as compared with the bilateral PS fixation group in our study. Conclusion Our study suggested TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was as safe and effective as that with bilateral PS fixation. Unilateral PS fixation may significantly reduce the intraoperative blood loss and shorten the operation time, somewhat improve the clinical outcome scores of ODI and VAS Back without significant difference comparing fusion rate, complication rate and duration of hospital stay between the two groups at postoperative follow-up. BPSF with TLIF likely causes more degeneration at the cranial adjacent segment compared with UPSF techniques. However, the long-term follow up is required to demonstrate the impact of these findings.

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral instrumented fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disorders

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-178
Author(s):  
Sanjay Yadav ◽  
Saurabh Singh ◽  
Raj Kumar Arya ◽  
Alok Kumar ◽  
Ishan Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Spine Disorders

Objectives: Spinal fusion is an effective treatment for degenerative lumbar spine; however, conflicting results exist regarding the best procedure. This study compares the clinical and radiological outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) in patients of degenerative lumbar spine disorders. Methods: Of the total 37 patients, 16 patients were operated with TLIF and 21 were operated with instrumented PLF with bone grafting. Duration of the study was from June 2017 to June 2019. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Inclusion criteria were (1) age of patient ranging from 18 years to 70 years, (2) involvement of single level, (3) diagnosis of degenerative spine disease, and (4) minimum follow-up of 1 year. Radiographic parameters such as slippage of vertebrae, anterior and posterior disc heights, local disc lordosis, T12–S1 angle were measured, and fusion were assessed; comparison between preoperative and postoperative parameters was also done. Clinical outcome score was obtained using visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software. Results: No significant difference was found in ODI and VAS between TLIF and PLF. Restoration of disc height and improvement of local disc lordosis was better in the TLIF group than in the PLF group. The fusion rate was 87.5% in the TLIF group and 81% in the instrumented PLF group. Amount of blood loss was slightly higher in the TLIF group (319.69 ± 53.8 mL) than in the instrumented PLF group (261.19 ± 34.9 mL). Operating time was also slightly higher in TLIF (133 ± 6.02 min) than in instrumented PLF (90.71 ± 6.3 min). Conclusion: TLIF is superior to instrumented PLF in terms of restoration of anterior and posterior disc heights and improvement in local disc lordosis and higher fusion rate, however it requires greater surgical expertise and more experience. Because of anterior cage support, early weight-bearing mobilization can be allowed in the TLIF group compared to the PLF group. Surgical time and blood loss were slightly higher in cases of TLIF than instrumented PLF.

scholarly journals Twelve-month results of a multicenter, blinded, pilot study of a novel peptide (B2A) in promoting lumbar spine fusion

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 358-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeeshan Sardar ◽  
David Alexander ◽  
William Oxner ◽  
Stephan du Plessis ◽  
Albert Yee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Iliac Crest Bone Graft ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
The Mean

OBJECT Failure of fusion after a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure is a challenging problem that can lead to ongoing low-back pain, dependence on pain medication, and inability to return to work. B2A is a synthetic peptide that has proven efficacy in achieving fusion in animal models and may have a better safety profile than bone morphogenetic protein. The authors undertook this study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of B2A peptide–enhanced ceramic granules (Prefix) in comparison with autogenous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG, control) in patients undergoing single-level TLIF. METHODS Twenty-four patients with single-level degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine at L2–S1 requiring TLIF were enrolled between 2009 and 2010. They were randomly assigned to 3 groups: a control group (treated with ICBG, n = 9), a Prefix 150 group (treated with Prefix 150 μg/cm3 granules, n = 8), and a Prefix 750 group (treated with Prefix 750 μg/cm3 granules, n = 7). Outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog pain scale, and radiographic fusion as assessed by CT and dynamic flexion/extension lumbar plain radiographs. RESULTS At 12 months after surgery, the radiographic fusion rate was 100% in the Prefix 750 group, 78% in the control group, and 50% in the Prefix 150 group, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). At 6 weeks the mean ODI score was 41.0 for the control group, 27.7 for the Prefix 750 group, and 32.2 for the Prefix 150 group, whereas at 12 months the mean ODI was 24.4 for control, 31.1 for Prefix 750, and 29.7 for Prefix 150 groups. Complications were evenly distributed among the groups. CONCLUSIONS Prefix appears to provide a safe alternative to autogenous ICBG. Prefix 750 appears to show superior radiographic fusion when compared with autograft at 12 months after TLIF, although no statistically significant difference was demonstrated in this small study. Prefix and control groups both appeared to demonstrate comparable improvements to ODI at 12 months.

scholarly journals Nonstructural versus structural bone grafting in the treatment of lumbar tuberculosis: a retrospective cohort study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zenghui Zhao ◽  
Jianxiao Li ◽  
Qiqi Peng ◽  
Yong Zhu ◽  
Wei Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cobb Angle ◽  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Surgical Trauma ◽  
Bone Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Anterior Column Support ◽  
Posterior Debridement

Abstract [Background] Various bone grafting have been reported to achieve anterior column support and bone fusion after one stage posterior debridement in the treatment of lumbar tuberculosis. However, nonstructural bone grafting has been rarely studied. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of nonstructural bone grafting versus structural bone grafting in the treatment of lumbar tuberculosis.[Patients and methods] We retrospectively reviewed patients with nonstructural (n=27) and structural (n=22) bone grafting after single-stage posterior debridement and instrumentation for lumbar tuberculosis with at least 24 months of follow-up. Plain radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography scans, and health-related outcomes (e.g. Visual Analog Scale for back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index) were collected before surgery and at follow-up. [Results] Both nonstructural and structural bone grafting were associated with significant improvements in the quality of life parameters, the laboratory tests and the Cobb angle of local kyphosis. A slight loss of Cobb angle correction was observed in two groups. Nonstructural bone grafting resulted in the significantly less operation duration, blood loss and lower bone fusion rate than structural bone grafting group. There were three complications in the nonstructural bone grafting and four complications in the structural bone grafting group, with no significant difference between two groups.[Conclusions] Nonstructural bone grafting can achieve anterior column support with less surgical trauma and simpler surgical procedure than structural bone grafting, but the lower rate of grafted bone fusion should be taken into consideration when choosing nonstructural bone grafting.

Bone Fusion Rate in the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine After Laminoplasty With Laminar Screws

Spine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (22) ◽  
pp. E1325-E1330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Heon Yang ◽  
Chi Heon Kim ◽  
Chun Kee Chung ◽  
Sung Bae Park ◽  
Seil Sohn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Bone Fusion ◽  
Thoracic And Lumbar Spine

Association between lumbar sacralization and increased degree of vertebral slippage and disc degeneration in patients with L4 spondylolysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 767-771
Author(s):  
Xinqiang Yao ◽  
Ruoting Ding ◽  
Junhao Liu ◽  
Siyuan Zhu ◽  
Jingshen Zhuang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Disc Degeneration ◽  
Transverse Process ◽  
Modic Changes ◽  
Bony Fusion ◽  
Transitional Vertebra ◽  
Type Iiia ◽  
Type Iiib ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Lumbosacral Transitional Vertebra

OBJECTIVEThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of lumbar sacralization on the level of vertebral slip and disc degeneration in patients with L4 spondylolysis.METHODSThe authors analyzed data from 102 cases in which patients underwent surgical treatment for L4 spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis at their institution between March 2007 and September 2016. Lumbar sacralization was characterized by the presence of pseudarthrosis and/or bony fusion between the L5 transverse process and sacrum, and the type of lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV) was evaluated with the Castellvi classification. The amount of vertebral slippage was measured using the Taillard technique and Meyerding grade. Degeneration of the L4–5 segment was quantified using the Pfirrmann and Modic classifications. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of sacralization, and the amount of vertebral slip and degeneration of the L4–5 segment was compared between groups.RESULTSLumbar sacralization was present in 37 (36%) of 102 patients with L4 spondylolysis. The LSTV was type IIa in 10 cases, type IIb in 7, type IIIa in 2, and type IIIb in 18. The levels of vertebral slip and disc degeneration in the group of patients with sacralization were significantly greater than in the group without sacralization. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups with respect to Modic changes.CONCLUSIONSThe increased stability between a sacralized L5 and the sacrum may predispose the L4–5 segment to greater instability and disc degeneration in patients with L4 spondylolysis.

scholarly journals Clinical Evaluation of Microendoscopy-Assisted Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 135
Author(s):  
Tomohide Segawa ◽  
Hisashi Koga ◽  
Masahito Oshina ◽  
Katsuhiko Ishibashi ◽  
Yuichi Takano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Background and objectives: Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) is a widely performed, minimally invasive technique to achieve lumbar lateral interbody fusion. However, some complications can arise due to constraints posed by the limited surgical space and visual field. The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term postoperative clinical outcomes of microendoscopy-assisted OLIF (ME-OLIF) compared to conventional OLIF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively investigated 75 consecutive patients who underwent OLIF or ME-OLIF. The age, sex, diagnosis, and number of fused levels were obtained from medical records. Operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and intraoperative complications were also collected. Operation time and EBL were only measured per level required for the lateral procedure, excluding the posterior fixation surgery. The primary outcome measure was assessed using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). The secondary outcome measure was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), measured preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Results: This case series consisted of 14 patients in the OLIF group and 61 patients in the ME-OLIF group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the mean operative time and EBL (p = 0.90 and p = 0.50, respectively). The perioperative complication rate was 21.4% in the OLIF group and 21.3% in the ME-OLIF group (p = 0.99). In both groups, the postoperative JOABPEQ, EQ-5D, and ODI scores improved significantly (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Although there was no significant difference in clinical results between the two surgical methods, the results suggest that both are safe surgical methods and that microendoscopy-assisted OLIF could serve as a potential alternative to the conventional OLIF procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document