scholarly journals Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 8693-8698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinqiu Zhao ◽  
Shujun Zhang ◽  
Xiaosong Li ◽  
Bin He ◽  
Yunsheng Ou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion

scholarly journals Quantitative comparison of clinical outcomes and decompression parameters between extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating lumbar spinal stenosis: a 3-year retrospective cohort study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junchao Xing ◽  
Peng Cheng ◽  
Jianzhong Xu ◽  
Hongwei Lu ◽  
Qingyi He
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background This retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy and decompression parameters of extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods From January 2012 to June 2016, 1455 patients with LSS who underwent surgery were reviewed and 83 cases were included (40 cases for XLIF and 43 cases for TLIF). The operative time, blood loss, accumulated fluoroscopy time, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), fusion rate and complications were evaluated. Moreover, decompression parameters were compared, including the sagittal disc height (DH), the foraminal height (FH) and area (FA), the lumbar lordosis (LL), the transverse area of the dural sac (DS), as well as the rate of change loss of these parameters. Results The baseline was consistent between two groups. The mean follow-up time was 36.9 months. Both of XLIF and TLIF yielded clinical improvements. XLIF had advantages over TLIF in blood loss, operative time, hospital stay and complication. The fusion rate, postoperative VAS and ODI scores were comparable. Particularly, XLIF showed analogous, or even better, capacity of ameliorating decompression parameters to TLIF, especially regarding DH, LL and the maintenance of decompression. Conclusions Compared with TLIF, XLIF is advantageous to avoid blood loss, shorten the operative time, hospital stay and maintain the decompressive effect in treating LSS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document