COMPARISON OF TRAUMATIC RELATED INDEX IN SERUM BETWEEN MINIMALLY INVASIVE AND OPEN TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION FOR TISSUE INJURY_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

ZOU Shu , WANG Jian , PAN Wenqi , ZHENG Yong , Huang Bo.

Department of Orthopedics, Affiliated Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400037, P.R.China. Corresponding author: WANG Jian, E-mail: tonywjxq@yahoo.com;

Corresponding author：

Keywords：

Tissue injury Inflammatory reaction; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; Minimally invasive surgery; Open surgery; Lumbar degenerative disease

DOI：

10.7507/1002-1892.20130209

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To compare the difference of traumatic related index in serum and its significance between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF. Methods Sixty patients were enrolled by the entry criteria between May and November 2012, and were divided into MIS-TLIF group (n=30) and open TLIF group (n=30). There was no significant difference in gender, age, type of lesions, disease segment, and disease duration between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospitalization time were recorded, and the pain severity of incision was evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS). The serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatine kinase (CK) were measured at preoperation and at 24 hours postoperatively. The levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) in serum were measured at preoperation and at 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours after operation. Results The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospitalization time of MIS-TLIF group were significantly smaller than those of open TLIF group (P lt; 0.05), and the VAS score for incision pain in MIS-TLIF group was significantly lower than that of open TLIF group at 1, 2, and 3 days after operation (P lt; 0.05). The levels of CRP, CK, IL-6, and IL-10 in MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in open TLIF group at 24 hours after operation (P lt; 0.05), but there was no significant difference between 2 groups before operation (P gt; 0.05). No significant difference was found in TNF-α level between 2 groups at pre- and post-operation (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Compared with the open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF may significantly reduce tissue injury and systemic inflammatory reactions during the early postoperative period.

Citation： ZOU Shu,WANG Jian,PAN Wenqi,ZHENG Yong,Huang Bo.. COMPARISON OF TRAUMATIC RELATED INDEX IN SERUM BETWEEN MINIMALLY INVASIVE AND OPEN TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION FOR TISSUE INJURY. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2013, 27(8): 960-964. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.20130209 Copy

1.	Cutler AR, Siddiqui S, Mohan AL, et al. Comparison of polyetheretherketone cage with emoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in tranaforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine, 2007, 5(6): 534-539.
2.	Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O’Brien MF, et al. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2 year results. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2002, 15(1): 31-38.
3.	李兵, 胡朝晖, 卓祥龙. 经椎间孔椎体间融合治疗退行性腰椎间盘病. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2008, 22(8): 914-917.
4.	Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, et al. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine, 2005, 3(2): 98-105.
5.	Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive trmasforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2005, 18 Suppl 1: S1-6.
6.	Seheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery, 2007, 60(4 Suppl 2): 203-213.
7.	Thelander U, Larsson S. Quantitation of C-reactive protein levels and erythrocyte sedimentation rate after spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 17(4): 400-404.
8.	Takahashi J, Ebara S, Kamimura M, et al. Early-phase enhanced inflammatory reaction after spinal in-strumentation surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2001, 26(15): 1698-1704.
9.	Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H, et al. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1996, 21(8): 941-944.
10.	Kawaguchi Y, Yabuki S, Styf J, et al. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evlanation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1996, 21(22): 2683-2688.
11.	王建, 张正丰, 李长青, 等. 微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术翻修治疗腰椎退变性疾病. 脊柱外科杂志, 2012, 10(1): 13-16.
12.	Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, et al. Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TILF). Eur Spine J, 2005, 14(9): 887-894.
13.	Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(17): 1615-1620.
14.	Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J, 2010, 19(10): 1780-1784.
15.	梁博伟, 殷国前, 赵劲民, 等. 微创经椎间孔椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎失稳. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2011, 25(12): 1449-1454.
16.	Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Li YY, et al. Less systemic cytokine response in patients following microendoscopic versus open lumbar discectomy. J Orthop Res, 2005, 23(2): 406-411.
17.	Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 22(9): 1018-1023.
18.	张超, 周跃, 初同伟, 等. 椎间盘镜下与开放手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症对椎旁肌损伤程度的比较研究. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2006, 21(4): 287-289.
19.	Kim YI, Song KE, Ryeon HK, et al. Enhanced inflammatory cytokine Production at ischemia/reperfusion in human liver resection. Hepatogastroenterology, 2002, 49(46): 1077-1082.
20.	Gogos CA, Drosou E, Bassaris HP, et al. Pro- versus anti-inflammatory cytokine profile in patients with severe sepsis: a marker for prognosis and future therapeutic options. J Infect Dis, 2000, 181(1): 176-180.

1. Cutler AR, Siddiqui S, Mohan AL, et al. Comparison of polyetheretherketone cage with emoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in tranaforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine, 2007, 5(6): 534-539.
2. Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O’Brien MF, et al. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2 year results. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2002, 15(1): 31-38.
3. 李兵, 胡朝晖, 卓祥龙. 经椎间孔椎体间融合治疗退行性腰椎间盘病. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2008, 22(8): 914-917.
4. Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, et al. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine, 2005, 3(2): 98-105.
5. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive trmasforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2005, 18 Suppl 1: S1-6.
6. Seheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery, 2007, 60(4 Suppl 2): 203-213.
7. Thelander U, Larsson S. Quantitation of C-reactive protein levels and erythrocyte sedimentation rate after spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 17(4): 400-404.
8. Takahashi J, Ebara S, Kamimura M, et al. Early-phase enhanced inflammatory reaction after spinal in-strumentation surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2001, 26(15): 1698-1704.
9. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H, et al. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1996, 21(8): 941-944.
10. Kawaguchi Y, Yabuki S, Styf J, et al. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evlanation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1996, 21(22): 2683-2688.
11. 王建, 张正丰, 李长青, 等. 微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术翻修治疗腰椎退变性疾病. 脊柱外科杂志, 2012, 10(1): 13-16.
12. Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, et al. Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TILF). Eur Spine J, 2005, 14(9): 887-894.
13. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(17): 1615-1620.
14. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J, 2010, 19(10): 1780-1784.
15. 梁博伟, 殷国前, 赵劲民, 等. 微创经椎间孔椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎失稳. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2011, 25(12): 1449-1454.
16. Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Li YY, et al. Less systemic cytokine response in patients following microendoscopic versus open lumbar discectomy. J Orthop Res, 2005, 23(2): 406-411.
17. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 22(9): 1018-1023.
18. 张超, 周跃, 初同伟, 等. 椎间盘镜下与开放手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症对椎旁肌损伤程度的比较研究. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2006, 21(4): 287-289.
19. Kim YI, Song KE, Ryeon HK, et al. Enhanced inflammatory cytokine Production at ischemia/reperfusion in human liver resection. Hepatogastroenterology, 2002, 49(46): 1077-1082.
20. Gogos CA, Drosou E, Bassaris HP, et al. Pro- versus anti-inflammatory cytokine profile in patients with severe sepsis: a marker for prognosis and future therapeutic options. J Infect Dis, 2000, 181(1): 176-180.

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

COMPARISON OF TRAUMATIC RELATED INDEX IN SERUM BETWEEN MINIMALLY INVASIVE AND OPEN TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION FOR TISSUE INJURY

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content