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 therapeutic effect of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lateral fusion (PLF) in treatment of thoracolumbar spine fracture and dislocation. Methods From January 2005 to July 2007, 35 patients (22 males, 13 females, aged 17-53 years old) with thoracolumbar spine fracture and dislocation (T11-L3) received posterior open reduction and pedicle nail-stick system internal fixation. Among which, 14 patients underwent TLIF(group TLIF), and the rest 21 patients underwent PLF (group PLF). According to AO classification, group TLIF had 3 cases of A3, 7 cases of B and 4 cases of C, while group PLF had 4 cases of A3, 10 cases of B and 7 cases of C. Based on American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Scoring Standard formulated in 2000, the motor score of group TLIF and group PLF was (50.6 ± 3.6) and (50.8 ± 4.2) points, respectively; and the sensory score was (170.5 ± 42.7) and (153.8 ± 23.7) points, respectively. No significant difference was noted between 2 groups in general information (P gt; 0.05). Results The operation time of group TLIF and group PLF was (316 ± 32) minutes and (254 ± 27) minutes, and the blood loss of group TLIF and group PLF was (487 ± 184) mL and (373 ± 72) mL, indicating there were significant differences between 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). Wounds of all patients were healed by first intention and there was no death, aggravation of neurological function impairment and compl ication of internal fixation instrument loosening and breaking. All 35 cases were followed up for 9-23 months with an average of 14.6 months. Postoperatively, the thoracolumbar bone fusion rate of group TLIF and group PLF was 100% and 85.7%, respectively, indicating there was a significant difference (P lt; 0.05). At 3 months after operation, the motor score of group TLIF and group PLF was increased by (10.4 ± 10.0) and (9.4 ± 9.3) points, respectively; and the sensory score was upgraded by (26.5 ± 22.8) and (28.8 ± 28.4) points, respectively, showing there were no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). At immediate moment, 3, 6 and 12 months after operation, the spine height restoration of group TLIF was (5.4 ± 2.1), (5.4 ± 1.9), (5.4 ± 1.4) and (5.3 ± 1.3) mm, respectively; while it was (5.3 ± 2.6), (5.3 ± 2.2), (4.8 ± 3.1) and (4.2 ± 3.6) mm for group PLF. Meanwhile, the Cobbangle recovery of group TLIF was (14.5 ± 3.5), (14.5 ± 3.6), (14.4 ± 3.4) and (14.4 ± 3.6)º, respectively; while it was (14.3 ± 2.7), (14.2 ± 3.1), (12.2 ± 2.8) and (11.7 ± 3.3)º for group PLF. Concerning the spine height restoration and the Cobb angle recovery, no significant difference was observed between 2 groups at immediate moment and 3 months after operation (P gt; 0.05), but significant differences were noted at 6 and 12 months after operation (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion For the treatment othoracolumbar spine fracture and dislocation, TLIF is superior to PLF in bony fusion and restoration of spine column height.
Objective To evaluate the early cl inical outcomes of subtotal corpectomy and intervertebral bonegrafting through posterior approach alone in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture or thoracolumbar fracturedislocation.Methods Between January 2009 and December 2010, 20 patients with thoracolumbar burst fracture orthoracolumbar fracture dislocation were treated with subtotal corpectomy and intervertebral bone grafting through posteriorapproach alone. There were 14 males and 6 females, with an average age of 36.1 years (range, 19-47 years). Fractures were causedby falling from height in 12 cases, traffic accident in 6 cases, and crushing in 2 cases. According to AO classification, there were10 cases of A3 type, 8 cases of B2 type, and 2 cases of C2 type. Single segment was involved in 8 cases, double segments in 12cases. Twelve cases complicated by fracture dislocation and 6 cases by lateral displacement. All patients had bones occupancyin vertebral canal. The preoperative Cobb angle was (30.2 ± 3.9)°. According to Frankel classification for neurological function,there were 4 cases of grade B, 9 cases of grade C, and 7 cases of grade D at preoperation. The mean time between injury andoperation was 4.5 days (range, 1-12 days). Results All incisions healed by first intention, and no infection occurred.Twenty patients were followed up 8-16 months (mean, 12 months). The interbody fusion time was 6-9 months (mean, 7months). Neurological function recovered 1 to 3 grades: 1 case of grade C, 2 cases of grade D, 17 cases of grade E at last followup.The Cobb angle was (6.5 ± 4.2)° at last follow-up, showing significant difference when compared with preoperative value(t=2.39, P=0.00). No breaking or loosening of screw and implant sinkage occurred. Conclusion A combination of subtotalcorpectomy and intervertebral bone grafting through posterior approach alone has the advantages of complete decompression,restoration of spinal stabil ity, restoration of vertebral body height, high bone healing rate, and good recovery of neurologicalfunction. However, this surgical technique has a relatively large amount of blood loss and high requirements for surgeons.