International journal of critical illness and injury science · 2024
A comparative study of perioperative pain, blood loss, and hospital stay in an Indian population undergoing mini-open oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ahmad Suma Rabab, Jain Mantu, Sahoo Auroshish, Mishra Narayan Prasad, Singh Neha, Dansana Sumanta Kumar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are several approaches for lumbar fusion, although there is yet to be a consensus on which approach is the best. This study aimed to evaluate the intraoperative blood loss and acute postoperative pain in single-level mini-open oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgeries for the degenerative spine.
METHODS: Thirty-two patients were assigned by the surgeon to OLIF or TLIF groups - 16 in mini-open OLIF and 16 in open TLIF groups. The intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hemoglobin, numerical rating scale (NRS) at proposed time intervals for 24 h postoperative, and rescue analgesics used were compared among the groups. The operative duration and hospital stay in both groups were also compared.
RESULTS: The OLIF group showed significantly higher postoperative hemoglobin (11.5 vs. 10.5 g %, P = 0.04), lower 24-h postoperative pain scores on movement, (NRS 4 vs. 5.5, P = 0.0001), and shorter hospital stay (4.5 vs. 7 days, P = 0.003) than TLIF group. However, the surgery duration was significantly longer in OLIF than in TLIF (190 vs. 150 min, P = 0.005). Intraoperative hemodynamics, other postoperative pain scores at variable time points, and rescue analgesics given were comparable among groups (P > 0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was lower in OLIF than TLIF (275 vs. 500 mL) but was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Mini-open OLIF has favorable perioperative outcomes compared to open TLIF. Patients have higher postoperative hemoglobin and lesser pain on movement on the first postoperative day, leading to earlier mobilization and a shorter hospital stay.
METHODS: Thirty-two patients were assigned by the surgeon to OLIF or TLIF groups - 16 in mini-open OLIF and 16 in open TLIF groups. The intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hemoglobin, numerical rating scale (NRS) at proposed time intervals for 24 h postoperative, and rescue analgesics used were compared among the groups. The operative duration and hospital stay in both groups were also compared.
RESULTS: The OLIF group showed significantly higher postoperative hemoglobin (11.5 vs. 10.5 g %, P = 0.04), lower 24-h postoperative pain scores on movement, (NRS 4 vs. 5.5, P = 0.0001), and shorter hospital stay (4.5 vs. 7 days, P = 0.003) than TLIF group. However, the surgery duration was significantly longer in OLIF than in TLIF (190 vs. 150 min, P = 0.005). Intraoperative hemodynamics, other postoperative pain scores at variable time points, and rescue analgesics given were comparable among groups (P > 0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was lower in OLIF than TLIF (275 vs. 500 mL) but was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Mini-open OLIF has favorable perioperative outcomes compared to open TLIF. Patients have higher postoperative hemoglobin and lesser pain on movement on the first postoperative day, leading to earlier mobilization and a shorter hospital stay.