Objective To review the latest comparative research of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and traditional open approach. Methods The domestic and foreign literature concerning the comparative research of minimally invasive TLIF and traditional open TLIF was reviewed, then intraoperative indicators, length of hospitalization, effectiveness, complication, fusion rate, and the effect on paraspinal muscles were analyzed respectively. Results Minimally invasive TLIF has less blood loss and shorter length of hospitalization, but with longer operation and fluoroscopic time. Minimally invasive surgery has the same high fusion rate as open surgery, however, its effectiveness is not superior to open surgery, and complication rate is relatively higher. In the aspect of the effect on paraspinal muscles, in creatine kinase, multifidus cross-sectional area, and atrophy grading, minimally invasive surgery has no significant reduced damage on paraspinal muscles. Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF is not significantly superior to open TLIF, and it does not reduce the paraspinal muscles injury. But prospective double-blind randomized control trials are still needed for further study.
Objective To compare the short-term effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus open-TLIF in treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Between February 2010 and February 2011, 147 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative diseases underwent open-TLIF in 104 cases (open-TLIF group) and MIS-TLIF in 43 cases (MIS-TLIF group), and the clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease type, lesion level, disease duration, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), and preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative radiological exposure time, intra- and post-operative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative complications were compared between 2 groups. The VAS score and ODI were observed during follow-up. The imaging examination was done to observe the bone graft fusion and the locations of internal fixator and Cage. Results There was no significant difference in operation time between 2 groups (t=0.402, P=0.688); MIS-TLIF group had a decreased intra- and post-operative blood loss, shortened postoperative hospitalization time, and increased intraoperative radiological exposure time, showing significant differences when compared with open-TLIF group (P lt; 0.05). Cerebrospinal fluid leakage (2 cases) and superficial infection of incision (2 cases) occurred after operation in open-TLIF group, with a complication incidence of 3.8% (4/104); dorsal root ganglion stimulation symptom (3 cases) occurred in MIS-TLIF group, with a complication incidence of 7.0% (3/43); there was no significant difference in the complication incidence between 2 groups (χ2=0.657, P=0.417). The patients were followed up 18-26 months (mean, 21 months) in MIS-TLIF group, and 18-28 months (mean, 23 months) in open-TLIF group. The VAS scores and ODI of 2 groups at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS score between 2 groups at discharge and 3 months after operation (P gt; 0.05); VAS score of MIS-TLIF group was significantly lower than that of open-TLIF group at last follow-up (t= — 2.022, P=0.047). At 3 months and last follow-up, no significant difference was found in the ODI between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The imaging examination showed good positions of Cage and internal fixator, and bone graft fusion in 2 groups. Conclusion The short-term effectiveness of MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases was similar. MIS-TLIF has the advantages of less invasion and quick recovery, but the long-term effectiveness needs more observation.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic and open ankle arthrodeses. Methods The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed from 30 patients undergoing unilateral ankle arthrodesis between January 2008 and January 2011. Of 30 patients, 14 underwent arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (arthroscopic group), and 16 underwent open ankle arthrodesis (open group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, lesion type, disease duration, and preoperative American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization days, postoperative AOFAS score, and bony union rate were observed to evaluate the effectiveness. Results The operation time of arthroscopic group was significantly longer than that of open group (P lt; 0.05); the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospitalization days of arthroscopic group were significantly less than those of open group (P lt; 0.05). Superficial infection of incision occurred in 1 case of open group, and healing of incision by first intention was obtained in the other patients. All patients were followed up 12 months. No screw breakage was observed. The X-ray films showed bony fusion in 13 cases (92.86%) of arthroscopic group and in 10 cases (62.50%) of open group at 3 months after operation, showing significant difference (χ2=3.850, P=0.049); but no significant difference was found (χ2=0.910, P=0.341) in bony fusion rate between the arthroscopic group (14/14, 100%) and open group (15/16, 93.75%) at 12 months after operation. The AOFAS scores at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation were significantly higher than preoperative score in 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in AOFAS score between 2 groups at 1 and 3 months (P gt; 0.05), but significant differences were found at 6 and 12 months (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion The overall effectiveness of arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis is better than that of open ankle arthrodesis, which can decrease intraoperative blood loss, shorten hospitalization days, get higher bony fusion rate, and obtain good ankle function recovery.
Objective To review the progress in the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture. Methods Recent literature about the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture was reviewed and analyzed. Results Treatments of acute Achilles tendon rupture include operative and non-operative treatments. Operative treatments include open surgery and percutaneous minimally invasive surgery. Compared with non-operative treatment, operative treatment can effectively reduce the re-rupture incidence, but it had higher complication incidences of wound infection and nerve injury. Although early functional rehabilitation during non-operative treatment could reduce the re-rupture incidence, there is no consistent orthopaedic device and guideline for functional rehabilitation. Conclusion Both operative and non-operative treatments have advantages and disadvantages for the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture. No consistent conclusion is arrived regarding functional recovery. Future studies should explore the strategy of early functional rehabilitation during non-operative treatment and its mechanism of promoting tendon healing.
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.
ObjectiveTo summarized the clinical experience on laparoscopic radical surgery in patients with advanced distal gastric cancer. MethodsThe clinical data of 26 patients with advanced distant gastric cancer undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy were retrospectively analyzed. ResultsLaparoscopic distal gastrectomy was performed successfully in all patients. The operation time was (283.2±27.6) min (270-450 min) and the blood loss was (178.4±67.4) ml (80-350 ml). The time of gastrointestinal function recovery was (2.8±1.2) d (2-4 d), out of bed activity time was (1.5±0.4) d (1-3 d) and liquid diet feeding was (3.5±1.4) d (3-4 d). The hospital stay was (10.0±2.6) d (7-13 d). The number of harvested lymph nodes was 11 to 34 (17.8±7.3). The distance from proximal surgical margin to tumor was (7.0±2.1) cm (5-12 cm) and the distance from distal surgical margin to tumor was (5.5±1.8) cm (4-8 cm), thus surgical margins were negative in all samples. All patients were followed up for 3-48 months (mean 18.5 months), two patients with poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma died of extensive metastasis in 13 and 18 months, respectively, and other patients survived well. ConclusionsLaparoscopic radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer is safe and feasible. However, the advantage of laparoscopic technique over the conventional open surgery requires further study.
ObjectiveTo summary the standard treatment for early gastric cancer. MethodsThe current early gastric cancer treatment guidelines around the world were analyzed and the standardized treatment patterns for early gastric cancer were concluded. ResultsThe accurate preoperative evaluation for early gastric cancer is the basis of standardized treatment which can be divided into staging evaluation and histological evaluation.The staging evaluation is focused on the gastric wall invasion and lymph node involvement of the tumor while the histologic evaluation emphasize the histological type and grading of the tumor.According to the precise evaluation for early gastric cancer, endoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, open surgery, and multimodal therapy can be applied individually to the patients.Different treatment methods have their indications, but the indications of the therapies in different guidelines are suggested with slight differences. ConclusionIn clinical practice, the choice of treatment should be made with comprehensive consideration of diagnosis and individual characteristics of patients to achieve the most benefit on prognosis.
ObjectiveTo compare the postoperative complications following laparoscopic and open radical resection for rectal cancer. MethodsThe clinical data of 681 patients with rectal cancer from January 2011 to December 2014 in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were analyzed retrospectively, of whom 583 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (laparoscopic group) and 98 patients underwent open surgery (open group). The complications were compared between the two groups. Results①There were no statistically significant differences in the gender, age, total protein, albumin, and body mass index between the two groups (P > 0.05). As compared with the open group, the proportions of previous abdominal operation, Dixon operation, and TNM stageⅡandⅢwere lower (P < 0.05), while the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was more common (P < 0.05), the distance of the tumor lower margin from the anal verge was shorter (P < 0.05) in the laparoscopic group.②No differences were seen in terms of anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, urinary retention, intestinal obstruction, wound infection, abdominal sepsis, urinary tract infection, stoma complications, poor incision healing, bleeding, intestinal hemorrhage, and deep vein thrombosis between the two groups (P > 0.05). ConclusionsThe development of postoperative complications in the laparoscopic group is similar to the open group, which are both available approach to the treatment of rectal cancer. But more randomized clinical trials are warranted to confirm which one is better.
ObjectiveTo compare the results of laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative resection and open surgery for gasric stromal tumor. MethodsFrom January 2010 to March 2015, the clinical data of 56 cases undergoing laparoscopic resection for gasric stromal tumor and 53 cases of traditional operation selected during the same period were retrospectively compared. ResultsThere was no significant difference between two groups in patient's gender, age, body weight, size of tumor, tumor staging, method of operation, intraoperative conditions, postoperative overall complications, local recurrence, and distant metastasis. There were 1 case with the rupture of tumor and 1 case of open surgery transforming in laparoscopic group. In another group, there was the absence of the rupture of tumors. There was no mortality, stomach bleeding, stenosis or leakage occurred between two groups. In laparoscopic group, there were less operative blood loss and abdominal drainage, shorter time of postoperative anal exhaust time, fewer anodyne, a reduction of hospital stay than in convention operation group.However, laparoscopic resection required greater hospital costs and longer operative time. There were significant differences between two groups (P < 0.05). Conciusions With advantages of less blood loss and quicker recovery as compared to conventional operation. Laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative resection for gasric stromal tumor has similar effect when it is performed by well selection of cases, skilled surgeon with experience on open resection for surgical treatment of gastric stromal tumor.
ObjectiveTo investigate the advantage and short- and medium-term effectivenesses of paramedian incision minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (mini-TLIF) by comparing with open TLIF. MethodsA retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 54 patients with single segmental lumbar degenerative disease who accorded with the inclusion criteria between January 2012 and March 2014. Open TLIF was performed in 26 patients (open group), mini-TLIF in 28 cases (minimally invasive group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, etiology, and affected segments between 2 groups (P>0.05). The indexes of surgical trauma, systemic inflammatory response, clinical outcome, and interbody fusion rate were compared between 2 groups. ResultsDural rupture occurred in 1 case of open group, L5 nerve root injury in 1 case of minimally invasive group. All patients obtained primary healing of incision. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative drainage of minimally invasive group were significantly lower than those of open group (P<0.05). C-reactive protein, leucocyte count, and creatine kinase-MM (CK-MM) of open group were significantly higher than those of minimally invasive group at 24 hours after operation (P<0.05). At 7 days after operation, the CK-MM of minimally invasive group was significantly lower than that of open group (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found in C-reactive protein and leucocyte count between 2 groups (P>0.05). The follow-up time was 1.2-3.1 years in open group and 1.4-2.9 years in minimally invasive group. At 1 year after operation, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly improved in 2 groups (P<0.05). Minimally invasive group was better than open group in ODI and VAS score of back pain (P<0.05), but VAS score of leg pain showed no significant difference (P>0.05). According to the Suk interbody fusion standard, solid fusion was obtained in 18 cases, probable fusion in 4 cases, and nonunion in 4 cases, and the fusion rate was 84.61% in open group; solid fusion was obtained in 21 cases, probable fusion in 3 cases, and nonunion in 4 cases, and the fusion rate was 85.71% in minimally invasive group; and the interbody fusion rates showed no significant difference between 2 groups (χ2=0.072, P=0.821). ConclusionCompared with open TLIF, paramedian incision mini-TLIF has advantages of minimal surgical trauma and little blood loss for single-level lumbar degenerative disease. The short- and medium-term effectivenesses are satisfactory.