Lewis Daniel, Marya Shivan, Carrasco Roberto, Sabou Silviu, Leach John
Department of Neurosurgery, Manchester Centre for Clinical Neurosciences, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Geoffrey Jefferson Brain Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Asian Spine J. 2023 Oct;17(5):807-817. doi: 10.31616/asj.2022.0448. Epub 2023 Oct 4.
Retrospective single-center study.
This study aims to evaluate perioperative and intermediate-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different lumbar fusion techniques.
Various open and minimally invasive techniques for lumbar fusion are available, but previous studies comparing lumbar fusion techniques have heterogeneous data, making interpretation challenging.
Between 2011 and 2018, data from 447 consecutive patients undergoing one/two-level lumbar fusion were analyzed. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with bilateral muscle strip or Wiltse approach, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive TLIF, and posterolateral fusion only were among the surgical techniques used. Core outcomes measure index (COMI) questionnaires were distributed before surgery and at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively to establish patient selfreported outcome measures. Demographic data (age, gender, and body mass index [BMI]) for each patient were also collected in addition to surgical indication, previous operative history, perioperative outcomes, and complications, and whether later revision surgery was required. Pearson's chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, repeated measure mixed-effects models, and ordinal logistic regression were used for statistical analysis.
Postoperative COMI scores improved across all procedures compared with pre-surgery (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between different postoperative COMI scores. Significant predictors of higher postoperative COMI score included higher pretreatment COMI score (p≤0.001), previous surgery (p≤0.04), younger age (p≤0.05), higher BMI (p≤0.005), and the indications of lytic spondylolisthesis (p=0.02) and degenerative disc disease (p<0.001). Patients undergoing minimally invasive TLIF had a significantly shorter post-surgery stay than patients undergoing open PLIF (Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.03).
At 2 years postoperatively, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between open and minimally invasive techniques. These findings suggest that the main determinant of surgical approach should be surgeon preference and training.
回顾性单中心研究。
本研究旨在评估接受不同腰椎融合技术患者的围手术期及中期临床结局。
目前有多种用于腰椎融合的开放手术和微创手术技术,但既往比较腰椎融合技术的研究数据存在异质性,难以进行解读。
分析2011年至2018年间447例连续接受单节段/双节段腰椎融合手术患者的数据。手术技术包括采用双侧肌间隙或Wiltse入路的后路腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)、开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)和微创TLIF,以及单纯后外侧融合术。术前及术后3个月、1年和2年发放核心结局指标问卷(COMI),以确立患者自我报告的结局指标。除收集每位患者的人口统计学数据(年龄、性别和体重指数[BMI])外,还收集手术指征、既往手术史、围手术期结局和并发症,以及是否需要二期翻修手术。采用Pearson卡方检验、Kruskal-Wallis检验、重复测量混合效应模型和有序逻辑回归进行统计分析。
与术前相比,所有手术方式术后COMI评分均有所改善(p<0.001)。不同术后COMI评分之间无显著差异。术后COMI评分较高的显著预测因素包括术前COMI评分较高(p≤0.001)、既往手术史(p≤0.04)、年龄较轻(p≤0.05)、BMI较高(p≤0.005),以及椎体滑脱(p=0.02)和椎间盘退变(p<0.001)指征。接受微创TLIF的患者术后住院时间明显短于接受开放PLIF的患者(Kruskal-Wallis检验,p=0.03)。
术后2年,开放手术与微创手术的临床结局无显著差异。这些发现表明,手术方式的主要决定因素应为术者的偏好和培训。