Biomedical and environmental sciences : BES · 2020
Two-Year Outcomes of Midline lumbar Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of L4-L5 Degenerative Disease.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Wu Feng Liang, Dang Lei, Zhou Hua, Yu Miao, Wei Feng, Jiang Liang, Liu Zhong Jun, Liu Xiao Guang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of midline lumbar fusion (MIDLF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and/or stenosis in L4-L5 two years after surgery.
METHODS: Consecutively treated patients with lumbar pathology who underwent MIDLF ( n = 16) and a historical control group who underwent MI-TLIF ( n = 34) were included. Clinical symptoms were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores before surgery and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery.
RESULTS: The mean operative time and hematocrit (HCT, Day 1) were significantly shorter and lower in MIDLF cases (174 min vs. 229 min, P < 0.001; 0.34 vs. 0.36, P = 0.037). The MI-TLIF group showed better improvement than the MIDLF group in ODI and VAS back and leg pain at 3 months postoperatively. VAS leg pain was higher in MIDLF than in MI-TLIF cases at 6 months. At 24 months follow-up, VAS back pain was higher in MI-TLIF than in MIDLF cases ( P = 0.018).
CONCLUSION: MIDLF is comparable to MI-TLIF at L4-5 in clinical outcomes and fusion rates, and the results verified the meaningful advantage of using MIDLF for the elderly with osteoporosis.
METHODS: Consecutively treated patients with lumbar pathology who underwent MIDLF ( n = 16) and a historical control group who underwent MI-TLIF ( n = 34) were included. Clinical symptoms were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores before surgery and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery.
RESULTS: The mean operative time and hematocrit (HCT, Day 1) were significantly shorter and lower in MIDLF cases (174 min vs. 229 min, P < 0.001; 0.34 vs. 0.36, P = 0.037). The MI-TLIF group showed better improvement than the MIDLF group in ODI and VAS back and leg pain at 3 months postoperatively. VAS leg pain was higher in MIDLF than in MI-TLIF cases at 6 months. At 24 months follow-up, VAS back pain was higher in MI-TLIF than in MIDLF cases ( P = 0.018).
CONCLUSION: MIDLF is comparable to MI-TLIF at L4-5 in clinical outcomes and fusion rates, and the results verified the meaningful advantage of using MIDLF for the elderly with osteoporosis.