Skovrlj Branko, Belton Patrick, Zarzour Hekmat, Qureshi Sheeraz A
Branko Skovrlj, Hekmat Zarzour, Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, United States.
World J Orthop. 2015 Dec 18;6(11):996-1005. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i11.996.
To compare minimally invasive (MIS) and open techniques for MIS lumbar laminectomy, direct lateral and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgeries with respect to length of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), neurologic complications, perioperative transfusion, postoperative pain, postoperative narcotic use, and length of stay (LOS).
A systematic review of previously published studies accessible through PubMed was performed. Only articles in English journals or published with English language translations were included. Level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed. Statistical data was calculated with analysis of variance with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
A total of 11 pertinent laminectomy studies, 20 direct lateral studies, and 27 TLIF studies were found. For laminectomy, MIS techniques resulted in a significantly longer length of surgery (177.5 min vs 129.0 min, P = 0.04), shorter LOS (4.3 d vs 5.3 d, P = 0.01) and less perioperative pain (visual analog scale: 16 ± 17 vs 34 ± 31, P = 0.04). There is evidence of decreased narcotic use for MIS patients (postoperative intravenous morphine use: 9.3 mg vs 42.8 mg), however this difference is of unknown significance. Direct lateral approaches have insufficient comparative data to establish relative perioperative outcomes. MIS TLIF had superior EBL (352 mL vs 580 mL, P < 0.0001) and LOS (7.7 d vs 10.4 d, P < 0.0001) and limited data to suggest lower perioperative pain.
Based on perioperative outcomes data, MIS approach is superior to open approach for TLIF. For laminectomy, MIS and open approaches can be chosen based on surgeon preference. For lateral approaches, there is insufficient evidence to find non-inferior perioperative outcomes at this time.
比较微创(MIS)和开放技术在MIS腰椎椎板切除术、直接外侧和经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)手术中的手术时长、估计失血量(EBL)、神经并发症、围手术期输血、术后疼痛、术后麻醉药物使用及住院时长(LOS)。
对通过PubMed可获取的既往发表研究进行系统综述。仅纳入英文期刊发表的文章或附有英文译文的文章。评估所选文章的证据级别。采用方差分析计算统计数据,P<0.05被视为具有统计学意义。
共找到11项相关椎板切除术研究、20项直接外侧入路研究和27项TLIF研究。对于椎板切除术,MIS技术导致手术时长显著更长(177.5分钟对129.0分钟,P = 0.04)、住院时长更短(4.3天对5.3天,P = 0.01)且围手术期疼痛更少(视觉模拟评分:16±17对34±31,P = 0.04)。有证据表明MIS患者的麻醉药物使用减少(术后静脉注射吗啡用量:9.3毫克对42.8毫克),然而这种差异的意义尚不清楚。直接外侧入路的比较数据不足,无法确定相对的围手术期结果。MIS TLIF的EBL(352毫升对580毫升,P<0.0001)和住院时长(7.7天对10.4天,P<0.0001)更优,且有限数据表明围手术期疼痛更低。
基于围手术期结果数据,MIS入路在TLIF方面优于开放入路。对于椎板切除术,可根据外科医生的偏好选择MIS和开放入路。对于外侧入路,目前尚无足够证据表明其围手术期结果不劣于其他方法。