Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Kuo-Tai Chen¹  Jian-Jun Chang²  Lin Sun²  Li-Ming He²  Hao-Yu Feng²  Yan-Nan Zhang²  Qiang Chang²  Chien-Min Chen³ 

[1] Department of Neurosurgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Chiayi Branch, Chiayi Branch, Chiayi, Taiwan;Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shanxi Bethune Hospital(Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences);Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital;

关键词: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion;    Endoscope;    Minimally invasive;    Lumbar degenerative diseases;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-022-05287-9

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has become an emerging technique. Some researchers have reported the technique of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. We propose percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) as an alternative approach. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy of PE-PLIF by comparing percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods Thirty patients were enrolled in each group. Demographic data, perioperative data, and radiological parameters were collected prospectively. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Results The background data were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time was longer in the PE-PLIF group. The PE-PLIF group showed benefits in less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. VAS and ODI scores significantly improved in both groups. However, the VAS score of low-back pain was lower in the PE-PLIF group. The satisfaction rate was 96.7% in both groups. The radiological outcomes were similar in both groups. In the PE-PLIF group, the fusion rate was 93.3%, and the cage subsidence rate was 6.7%; in the open PLIF group, the fusion and cage subsidence rates were 96.7% and 16.7%. There were minor complications in one patient in the PE-PLIF group and two in the open PLIF group. Conclusions The current study revealed that PE-PLIF is safe and effective compared with open PLIF. In addition, this minimally invasive technique may enhance postoperative recovery by reducing tissue damage and blood loss.

【 授权许可】

Unknown