Objective To compare the effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression with ultrasounic osteotome and traditional tool total laminectomy decompression PLIF in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods The clinical data of 48 patients with single-stage degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between January 2017 and June 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 27 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression PLIF with ultrasonic osteotome (group A), and 21 patients were treated with total laminectomy and decompression PLIF with traditional tools (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, stenosis segment, degree of spinal canal stenosis, and disease duration between the two groups (P>0.05), which was comparable. The time of laminectomy decompression, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the occurrence of operation-related complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was applied to evaluate bone graft fusion at last follow-up. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the patients’ lumbar and back pain at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) score was used to evaluate the patients’ lumbar and back function improvement before operation and at 6 months after operation. Results The time of laminectomy decompression in group A was significantly longer than that in group B, and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less than those in group B (P<0.05). There was no nerve root injury, dural tear, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and hematoma formation during and after operation in the two groups. All patients were followed up after operation, the follow-up time in group A was 6-18 months (mean, 10.5 months) and in group B was 6-20 months (mean, 9.3 months). There was no complication such as internal fixation fracture, loosening and nail pulling occurred during the follow-up period of the two groups. There was no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups at 3 days after operation (t=1.448, P=0.154); the VAS score of group A was significantly lower than that of group B at 3 and 6 months after operation (P<0.05). The ODI scores of the two groups were significantly improved at 6 months after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in ODI scores between the two groups before operation and at 6 months after operation (P>0.05). At last follow-up, according to Bridwell criteria, there was no significant difference in bone graft fusion between the two groups (Z=–0.065, P=0.949); the fusion rates of groups A and B were 96.3% (26/27) and 95.2% (20/21) respectively, with no significant difference (χ2=0.001, P=0.979 ). Conclusion The treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression PLIF with ultrasonic osteotome can achieve similar effectiveness as traditional tool total laminectomy and decompression PLIF, reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage, and reduce lumbar back pain during short-term follow-up. It is a safe and effective operation method.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF) and minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods The clinical data of 134 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who met the selection criteria between January 2019 and January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, including 52 cases in PE-LIF group and 82 cases in MIS-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in general data such as gender, age, disease duration, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and lower extremity pain, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, hospitalization stay, and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. The level of serum creatine kinase (CK) was recorded at 1 day before operation and at 1 and 3 days after operation to evaluate intraoperative muscle damage. The Brantigan criteria was used to evaluate the interbody fusion in the two groups. The VAS scores of low back pain and lower extremity pain at 1 day before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, and 1 year after operation, and the ODI scores at 1 day before operation and at 3 months and 1 year after operation were recorded and compared between the two groups. ResultsThere was no significant difference in operation time and hospitalization stay between the two groups (P>0.05). The intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage in the PE-LIF group were significantly lower than those in the MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in serum CK between the two groups before operation (P>0.05), and the serum CK in the PE-LIF group at 1 and 3 days after operation were significantly lower than those in the MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). All patients were followed up regularly for 1 year. The postoperative VAS scores of low back pain and lower extremity pain and ODI score in both groups were significantly lower than those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). At 1 year after operation, 48 patients in PE-LIF group had successful interbody fusion, and 77 patients in MIS-TLIF group had successful interbody fusion. There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion distribution between the two groups at 3 months and 1 year after operation (P>0.05). There were 2 and 3 cases of lower limb numbness, 1 and 3 cases of neuroedema pain, 1 and 1 case of Cage displacement, 1 and 1 case of pedicle screw loosening in the PE-LIF group and MIS-TLIF group, respectively. No infection or dural sac tearing occurred in the two groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (9.6% vs. 9.8%) (χ2=0.001, P=0.979). ConclusionIn the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, PE-LIF can achieve similar effectiveness as MIS-TLIF, and PE-LIF has less intraoperative blood loss and less muscle damage.