Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Neurosurgery. 2020 Sep 1;87(3):555-562. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyaa097.
It remains unclear if minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is comparable to traditional, open TLIF because of the limitations of the prior small-sample-size, single-center studies reporting comparative effectiveness.
To compare MI-TLIF to traditional, open TLIF for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in the largest study to date by sample size.
We utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried patients with grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent single-segment surgery with MI- or open TLIF methods. Outcomes were compared 24 mo postoperatively.
A total of 297 patients were included: 72 (24.2%) MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) open TLIF. MI-TLIF surgeries had lower mean body mass indexes (29.5 ± 5.1 vs 31.3 ± 7.0, P = .0497) and more worker's compensation cases (11.1% vs 1.3%, P < .001) but were otherwise similar. MI-TLIF had less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 mL, P < .001), longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 min, P < .001), and a higher return-to-work (RTW) rate (100% vs 80%, P = .02). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for 24-mo Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale back pain (NRS-BP), NRS leg pain (NRS-LP), and Euro-Qol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) (P > .001). In multivariable adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF was associated with lower ODI (β = -4.7; 95% CI = -9.3 to -0.04; P = .048), higher EQ-5D (β = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.01-0.11; P = .02), and higher satisfaction (odds ratio for North American Spine Society [NASS] 1/2 = 3.9; 95% CI = 1.4-14.3; P = .02). Though trends favoring MI-TLIF were evident for NRS-BP (P = .06), NRS-LP (P = .07), and reoperation rate (P = .13), these results did not reach statistical significance.
For single-level grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with less disability, higher quality of life, and higher patient satisfaction compared with traditional, open TLIF. MI-TLIF was associated with higher rates of RTW, less blood loss, but longer operative times. Though we utilized multivariable adjusted analyses, these findings may be susceptible to selection bias.
由于之前小样本量、单中心研究报告比较有效性的局限性,微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术(MI-TLIF)是否与传统的开放性 TLIF 相当仍不清楚。
通过迄今为止最大的样本量研究,比较 MI-TLIF 与传统开放性 TLIF 治疗 1 级退行性腰椎滑脱症的疗效。
我们利用前瞻性质量结果数据库登记处,对接受 MI 或开放性 TLIF 单节段手术治疗的 1 级退行性腰椎滑脱症患者进行了查询。术后 24 个月比较了结果。
共纳入 297 例患者:72 例(24.2%)MI-TLIF 和 225 例(75.8%)开放性 TLIF。MI-TLIF 手术的平均体重指数较低(29.5±5.1 与 31.3±7.0,P=0.0497),工人赔偿病例较多(11.1%与 1.3%,P<0.001),但其他方面相似。MI-TLIF 出血量较少(108.8±85.6 与 299.6±242.2 毫升,P<0.001),手术时间较长(228.2±111.5 与 189.6±66.5 分钟,P<0.001),重返工作岗位(RTW)率较高(100%与 80%,P=0.02)。两组患者在术后 24 个月的 Oswestry 功能障碍指数(ODI)、数字评分量表背部疼痛(NRS-BP)、数字评分量表腿部疼痛(NRS-LP)和 Euro-Qol-5 维度(EQ-5D)方面均有显著改善(P>0.001)。在多变量调整分析中,MI-TLIF 与较低的 ODI(β=-4.7;95%置信区间=9.3 至-0.04;P=0.048)、较高的 EQ-5D(β=0.06;95%置信区间=0.01-0.11;P=0.02)和较高的满意度(北美脊柱协会(NASS)1/2 比值比=3.9;95%置信区间=1.4-14.3;P=0.02)相关。尽管 MI-TLIF 在 NRS-BP(P=0.06)、NRS-LP(P=0.07)和再次手术率(P=0.13)方面有改善的趋势,但这些结果并未达到统计学意义。
对于单节段 1 级退行性腰椎滑脱症,与传统的开放性 TLIF 相比,MI-TLIF 与较低的残疾程度、较高的生活质量和较高的患者满意度相关。MI-TLIF 与较高的 RTW 率、较少的出血量和较长的手术时间相关。尽管我们进行了多变量调整分析,但这些发现可能容易受到选择偏倚的影响。