• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review.微创腰椎手术的围手术期结局:一项系统综述。
World J Orthop. 2015 Dec 18;6(11):996-1005. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i11.996.
2
Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review.微创与开放后路腰椎融合术的围手术期结局及不良事件:荟萃分析与系统评价
J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Mar;24(3):416-27. doi: 10.3171/2015.2.SPINE14973. Epub 2015 Nov 13.
3
A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.一项比较单节段微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术的围手术期成本分析。
Spine J. 2014 Aug 1;14(8):1694-701. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.053. Epub 2013 Nov 16.
4
A prospective, multi-institutional comparative effectiveness study of lumbar spine surgery in morbidly obese patients: does minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion result in superior outcomes?肥胖患者腰椎手术的前瞻性、多机构比较有效性研究:微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术是否能带来更好的疗效?
World Neurosurg. 2015 May;83(5):860-6. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.12.034. Epub 2014 Dec 19.
5
Effect of Body Mass Index on Perioperative Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Open Fusions: A Multivariant Analysis.体重指数对微创斜外侧腰椎椎间融合术与开放融合术围手术期结局的影响:一项多变量分析
Cureus. 2018 Mar 8;10(3):e2288. doi: 10.7759/cureus.2288.
6
Comparison of Outcomes between Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.机器人辅助微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与单节段腰椎滑脱症斜侧方腰椎体间融合术的疗效比较。
Orthop Surg. 2021 Oct;13(7):2093-2101. doi: 10.1111/os.13151. Epub 2021 Oct 1.
7
Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life.微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术的比较疗效:对麻醉药物使用、重返工作岗位、残疾状况及生活质量的2年评估
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011 Dec;24(8):479-84. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055cac.
8
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: one surgeon's learning curve.微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术:一位外科医生的学习曲线
Spine J. 2014 Aug 1;14(8):1460-5. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.045. Epub 2013 Oct 3.
9
Minimally invasive versus open fusion for Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database.I度退行性腰椎滑脱症的微创与开放融合手术:质量结果数据库分析
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Aug;43(2):E11. doi: 10.3171/2017.5.FOCUS17188.
10
Comparison of 270-degree percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of geriatric lateral recess stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.局部麻醉下单侧入路经皮椎间孔镜 270°减压术与微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗老年退行性腰椎滑脱伴侧隐窝狭窄症的对比研究。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Mar 9;18(1):183. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-03676-x.

引用本文的文献

1
Advanced Visualization in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: The Ergonomics, Economics, and Evolution of Camera-Based Tubes and Retractors.微创脊柱手术中的高级可视化:基于摄像头的管道和牵开器的人体工程学、经济学及发展演变
Int J Spine Surg. 2024 Aug 30;18(S1):S64-S70. doi: 10.14444/8643.
2
Inducing Angiogenesis in the Nucleus Pulposus.诱导髓核血管生成。
Cells. 2023 Oct 19;12(20):2488. doi: 10.3390/cells12202488.
3
Two-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for Percutaneous Lumbar Interbody Fusion With an Expandable Titanium Cage Through Kambin's Triangle Without Facetectomy.经Kambin三角入路不进行椎板切除使用可扩张钛笼行腰椎椎间融合术的两年临床及影像学结果
Int J Spine Surg. 2023 Dec 26;17(6):760-770. doi: 10.14444/8540.
4
Improvement following minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients 80 years or older compared with younger age groups.80 岁及以上患者微创腰椎减压术后的改善情况与年轻患者相比。
J Neurosurg Spine. 2022 Jul 1;37(6):828-835. doi: 10.3171/2022.5.SPINE22361. Print 2022 Dec 1.
5
Recovery Kinetics After Commonly Performed Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Procedures.常见微创脊柱手术操作后的恢复动力学
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 Nov 1;47(21):1489-1496. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004399. Epub 2022 Jul 15.
6
Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.微创腰椎手术常见问题的实用解答。
Spine J. 2023 Jan;23(1):54-63. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.07.087. Epub 2022 Jul 15.
7
Beyond Placement of Pedicle Screws - New Applications for Robotics in Spine Surgery: A Multi-Surgeon, Single-Institution Experience.超越椎弓根螺钉置入——脊柱手术中机器人技术的新应用:多外科医生、单机构经验
Front Surg. 2022 Jun 16;9:889906. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.889906. eCollection 2022.
8
Percutaneous Lumbar Interbody Fusion With an Expandable Titanium Cage Through Kambin's Triangle: A Case Series With Initial Clinical and Radiographic Results.经Kambin三角入路使用可扩张钛笼进行经皮腰椎椎间融合术:初步临床和影像学结果的病例系列
Int J Spine Surg. 2021 Dec;15(6):1133-1141. doi: 10.14444/8144.
9
Facet Violation With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement: Impact of 3D Navigation and Facet Orientation.经皮椎弓根螺钉置入时的小关节侵犯:三维导航和小关节方向的影响
HSS J. 2021 Oct;17(3):281-288. doi: 10.1177/15563316211026324. Epub 2021 Jul 3.
10
Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Single Oblique PEEK Cage and Posterior Supplemental Fixation.采用单个斜向聚醚醚酮椎间融合器及后路辅助固定的内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术
Int J Spine Surg. 2020 Dec;14(s3):S45-S55. doi: 10.14444/7126. Epub 2020 Oct 29.

本文引用的文献

1
Postoperative Complications Within the First Year After Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion: Experience of the First 108 Patients.极外侧椎间融合术后第一年的术后并发症:108例患者的经验
Clin Spine Surg. 2016 Apr;29(3):E151-6. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000121.
2
Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes.腰椎侧方椎间融合术:临床及影像学结果
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2014 May;55(5):248-54. doi: 10.3340/jkns.2014.55.5.248. Epub 2014 May 31.
3
Increased incidence of pseudarthrosis after unilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar spondylosis: Clinical article.单侧经椎间孔腰椎体间融合内固定术后腰椎骨 质增生发病率增高:临床文章。
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Oct;21(4):601-7. doi: 10.3171/2014.6.SPINE13488. Epub 2014 Aug 1.
4
Percutaneous pedicle screw and rod fixation with TLIF in a series of 14 patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation.对14例复发性腰椎间盘突出症患者采用经皮椎弓根螺钉和棒系统固定并结合经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)。
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014 Sep;124:25-31. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.06.020. Epub 2014 Jun 23.
5
Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article.腰椎管狭窄症减压性椎板切除术的结果:微创单侧双侧减压椎板切除术与开放椎板切除术的比较:临床文章。
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Aug;21(2):179-86. doi: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE13420. Epub 2014 May 30.
6
Clinical outcome of microscopic lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy: clinical article.显微镜下腰椎棘突劈开式椎板切除术的临床疗效:临床文章。
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Aug;21(2):187-94. doi: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE1373. Epub 2014 May 30.
7
Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients.微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗肥胖患者的临床疗效比较。
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jun;20(6):644-52. doi: 10.3171/2014.2.SPINE13794. Epub 2014 Apr 18.
8
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort.微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术(MI-TLIF):与开放 TLIF 队列相比的手术技术、长期 4 年前瞻性结果和并发症。
Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014 Apr;25(2):279-304. doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2013.12.007. Epub 2014 Feb 18.
9
Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review.微创后路腰椎融合术的比较结果:系统评价。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jun;472(6):1727-37. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3465-5.
10
Microendoscopic Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis via the Paramedian Approach: Preliminary Results.经旁正中入路微创内窥镜下减压手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症:初步结果。
Global Spine J. 2012 Jun;2(2):87-94. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1319774.

微创腰椎手术的围手术期结局:一项系统综述。

Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review.

作者信息

Skovrlj Branko, Belton Patrick, Zarzour Hekmat, Qureshi Sheeraz A

机构信息

Branko Skovrlj, Hekmat Zarzour, Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, United States.

出版信息

World J Orthop. 2015 Dec 18;6(11):996-1005. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i11.996.

DOI:10.5312/wjo.v6.i11.996
PMID:26716097
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4686448/
Abstract

AIM

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).

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

目的

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)。

方法

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。