• 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

斯洛伐克微创脊柱治疗的最新进展及其与开放手术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的比较。

Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.

作者信息

Potašová Marina, Filipp Peter, Rusnák Róbert, Moraučíková Eva, Repová Katarína, Kutiš Peter

机构信息

Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Catholic University in Ruzomberok, 034 01 Ruzomberok, Slovakia.

Neurosurgery Clinic, Central Military Hospital SNP in Ruzomberok, 034 01 Ruzomberok, Slovakia.

出版信息

J Clin Med. 2023 Jul 18;12(14):4755. doi: 10.3390/jcm12144755.

DOI:10.3390/jcm12144755
PMID:37510873
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10381332/
Abstract

The study describes the benefits of MIS-TLIF (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) and compares them with OTLIF (open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion). It compares blood loss, length of hospitalization stays (LOS), operation time, and return of the patient to the environment. A total of 250 adults (109 males and 141 females), mean age 59.5 ± 12.6, who underwent MIS-TLIF in the Neurosurgery Clinic (NSC) Ruzomberok, Slovakia, because of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD), participated in this retrospective study. Data were obtained from the patients' medical records and from the standardized Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) index questionnaire. To compare ODI in our study sample, we used the Student's Paired Sample Test. To compare the MIS-TLIF and OTLIF approaches, a meta-analysis was conducted. Confidence intervals were 95% CI. The test of homogeneity (Chi-square (Q)) and the degree of heterogeneity (I test) among the included studies were used. Statistical analyses were two-sided (α = 0.05). All monitored parameters were significantly better in MIS-TLIF group: blood loss ( < 0.001), operation time ( < 0.001), and ODI changes ( < 0.001). LOS ( < 0.042) were close to the significance level. ODI in the study sample decreased by 33.44% points after MIS-TLIF, and it significantly increased as well ( < 0.001). The percentage of patients who were satisfied with the surgery they underwent was 84.8%. The study confirmed that the MIS-TLIF method is in general gentler for the patient and allows the faster regeneration of patient's health status compared to OTLIF.

摘要

该研究描述了微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)的益处,并将其与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(OTLIF)进行比较。研究比较了失血量、住院时间(LOS)、手术时间以及患者恢复日常活动的情况。共有250名成年人(109名男性和141名女性)参与了这项回顾性研究,他们因腰椎退行性疾病(LDD)在斯洛伐克鲁佐姆贝罗克神经外科诊所(NSC)接受了MIS-TLIF手术,平均年龄为59.5±12.6岁。数据来自患者的病历和标准化的奥斯威斯利功能障碍指数(ODI)问卷。为了比较我们研究样本中的ODI,我们使用了学生配对样本检验。为了比较MIS-TLIF和OTLIF方法,进行了荟萃分析。置信区间为95%CI。使用了纳入研究之间的同质性检验(卡方检验(Q))和异质性程度检验(I检验)。统计分析为双侧检验(α=0.05)。在MIS-TLIF组中,所有监测参数均显著更好:失血量(<0.001)、手术时间(<0.001)和ODI变化(<0.001)。住院时间(<0.042)接近显著水平。MIS-TLIF术后研究样本中的ODI下降了33.44个百分点,且也显著增加(<0.001)。对所接受手术感到满意的患者比例为84.8%。该研究证实,与OTLIF相比,MIS-TLIF方法总体上对患者的创伤更小,并能使患者的健康状况更快恢复。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/fe41d4303dc6/jcm-12-04755-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/545078cceebd/jcm-12-04755-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/8859187f4139/jcm-12-04755-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/99fbc14355c0/jcm-12-04755-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/842dadeed73c/jcm-12-04755-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/fe41d4303dc6/jcm-12-04755-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/545078cceebd/jcm-12-04755-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/8859187f4139/jcm-12-04755-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/99fbc14355c0/jcm-12-04755-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/842dadeed73c/jcm-12-04755-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/348f/10381332/fe41d4303dc6/jcm-12-04755-g005.jpg

相似文献

1
Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.斯洛伐克微创脊柱治疗的最新进展及其与开放手术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的比较。
J Clin Med. 2023 Jul 18;12(14):4755. doi: 10.3390/jcm12144755.
2
[Treatment of grade I and II degree degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under Quadrant channel].[象限通道下微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗Ⅰ、Ⅱ度退行性腰椎滑脱症]
Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2019 Mar 25;32(3):199-206. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2019.03.002.
3
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.
4
A comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与单纯减压治疗退变性腰椎滑脱症的对比研究。
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 May 1;46(5):E13. doi: 10.3171/2019.2.FOCUS18722.
5
[Clinical and radiologic comparison between oblique lateral interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis].[斜外侧椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗退行性腰椎滑脱症的临床与影像学比较]
Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2023 May 25;36(5):414-9. doi: 10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.2023.05.004.
6
[Comparison of short-term effectiveness between minimally invasive surgery- and open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative disease].[单节段腰椎退变性疾病的微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术短期疗效比较]
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2013 Mar;27(3):262-7.
7
Comparison of hidden blood loss and clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.经皮内窥镜下经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术的隐性失血及临床疗效比较。
Int Orthop. 2022 Sep;46(9):2063-2070. doi: 10.1007/s00264-022-05485-z. Epub 2022 Jun 20.
8
[Comparison of effectiveness between percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis].经皮同轴大通道内镜下腰椎椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效比较
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022 Jun 15;36(6):681-690. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202202076.
9
Comparison of surgical invasiveness, hidden blood loss, and clinical outcome between unilateral biportal endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective cohort study.单侧双通道内镜与微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的手术侵袭性、隐性失血及临床疗效比较:一项回顾性队列研究。
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023 Apr 10;24(1):274. doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06374-1.
10
[Comparison of minimally invasive using a tubular retraction system versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases].[使用管状牵开系统的微创手术与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的比较]
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2015 Sep 1;95(33):2681-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Long term clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar spondylolisthesis in a geriatric (>65 years) population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.老年(>65岁)人群腰椎滑脱症的微创经椎间孔椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)的长期临床疗效:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Front Surg. 2025 Mar 21;12:1517947. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2025.1517947. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
Marker Screw Utilization for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MS-MIS TLIF): Promises and Advantages.标记螺钉在微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术(MS-MIS TLIF)中的应用:前景与优势。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Mar 16;59(3):585. doi: 10.3390/medicina59030585.
2
Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome.微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术:短期疗效的前瞻性对照观察研究。
Neurosurg Rev. 2022 Oct;45(5):3417-3426. doi: 10.1007/s10143-022-01845-w. Epub 2022 Sep 6.
3
Ten-Year Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.
单节段腰椎滑脱症患者微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与开放经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术的 10 年疗效比较。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 Jun 1;47(11):773-780. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004334. Epub 2022 Feb 3.
4
Minimising radiation exposure to the surgeon in minimally invasive spine surgeries: A systematic review of 15 studies.微创脊柱手术中减少外科医生的辐射暴露:15 项研究的系统评价。
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021 Nov;107(7):102795. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102795. Epub 2020 Dec 14.
5
Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Techniques, Technologies, and Indications.微创脊柱手术:技术、科技与适应症
Asian Spine J. 2020 Oct;14(5):694-701. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0384. Epub 2020 Oct 14.
6
Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide.定义微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术:对全球外科医生所使用技术和工艺的系统评价
Global Spine J. 2020 Apr;10(2 Suppl):151S-167S. doi: 10.1177/2192568219882346. Epub 2020 May 28.
7
Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion.微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术的比较
Global Spine J. 2020 Apr;10(2 Suppl):143S-150S. doi: 10.1177/2192568219882344. Epub 2020 May 28.
8
Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis.经皮椎间孔镜下腰椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术的对比:文献回顾和荟萃分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Jul 22;14(1):229. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1266-y.
9
Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF.两种经椎间孔腰椎体间融合技术的对比分析:开放 TLIF 与 Wiltse 微创 TLIF。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 May 1;44(9):E555-E560. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002903.
10
Comparison of the Total and Hidden Blood Loss in Patients Undergoing Open and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.开放与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术患者总失血量与隐性失血量的比较
World Neurosurg. 2017 Nov;107:739-743. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.08.113. Epub 2017 Aug 24.