figshare
Browse
1/1
6 files

POSTEROLATERAL, POSTERIOR AND MI-TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION: A STUDY OF 212 CASES

dataset
posted on 2018-04-25, 02:52 authored by BRUNO MIGUEL BRÍGIDO MAIA, LUÍS PEDRO DUARTE SILVA, ISABEL CRISTINA GOMES COSTA SIMÕES, PEDRO CARVALHAIS SIMÕES, LUÍS PEDRO SOUSA FERREIRA TEIXEIRA

ABSTRACT Objective: Degenerative disc disease is a common problem that could require surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes, complications and benefits associated with intersomatic fusions by the MI-TLIF, PLIF and PLF techniques. Methods: A total of 212 patients were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent the same pre- and postoperative clinical evaluations using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and SF-36. Follow-ups were performed for at least one year. Inpatient days, complications, blood loss and operative times were equally quantified. Results: Estimated blood loss for MI-TLIF was statistically lower compared to the amount of blood recovered by Cell Saver device on PLIF and PLF groups. Mean surgical time for MI-TLIF were not significantly different compared to PLIF and PLF groups. Inpatient days were significantly lower in the MI-TLIF group, with an average decrease of one day. Four complications were recorded in the PLIF group, 2 in the PLF group, and one in the MI-TLIF group. Analysis of the clinical parameters revealed post-operative improvements at all time points, with the most statistically significant differences occurring at the first six months. Better results were achieved with the MI-TLIF technique. Conclusions: Compared to more invasive techniques, MI-TLIF showed fewer complications, less blood loss and shorter hospitalization times. Longer operative times in this group can be explained by the greater technical complexity and incipient learning curves. Interbody fusion by PLIF, PLF and MI-TLIF provided good clinical outcomes, but faster recovery was obtained with less invasive techniques. Level of evidence: III; Type of study: Retrospective comparative case study.

History

Usage metrics

    Coluna/Columna

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC