• 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

经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术后的不同恢复模式:使用混合效应分段回归比较微创与开放手术方法

Distinct Recovery Patterns After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Minimally Invasive and Open Approaches Using Mixed-Effects Segmented Regression.

作者信息

Asada Tomoyuki, Zhao Eric R, Ehrlich Adin M, Lui Adrian, Pezzi Andrea, Halayqeh Sereen, Harhash Tarek, Tuma Olivia C, Araghi Kasra, Albert Todd J, Farmer James, Huang Russel C, Sandhu Harvinder, Kim Han Jo, Lovecchio Francis C, Dowdell James E, Iyer Sravisht, Qureshi Sheeraz A

机构信息

Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.

Weill Cornell Medical College New York, NY, USA.

出版信息

Neurospine. 2025 Mar;22(1):3-13. doi: 10.14245/ns.2550096.048. Epub 2025 Mar 31.

DOI:10.14245/ns.2550096.048
PMID:40211508
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12010849/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF.

METHODS

This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches.

RESULTS

Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

摘要

目的

虽然微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)在关键临床指标上已显示出优于开放手术的优势,但关于患者报告结局的证据仍然有限。本研究比较了MIS-TLIF和开放TLIF术后的恢复轨迹和症状改善阶段。

方法

本回顾性研究纳入了接受单节段MIS-TLIF或开放TLIF手术的患者。术前和术后收集Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)以及背部和腿部疼痛的数字评分量表(NRS)。采用混合效应模型进行分段回归分析,以确定不同的恢复阶段,并比较两种手术方式之间的症状趋势。

结果

在324例患者中(268例MIS-TLIF,56例开放手术),除MIS组术前腿部疼痛更严重外(NRS:6.0 vs. 5.0,p = 0.027),基线人口统计学特征相似。分段回归模型确定了4个ODI恢复阶段:术后功能障碍期(PDP,第0至13天)、早期改善期(第13至28天)、晚期改善期(第28至110天)和平稳期(第110天之后)。MIS组在PDP期间的功能障碍加重明显更低(β = 0.93 vs. 1.42分/天,p = 0.008)。此外,MIS组NRS背部评分达到平稳期的时间明显早于开放手术组(MIS组为26.7±2.6天,开放手术组为51.7±6.6天,p < 0.001)。

结论

与开放手术相比,MIS-TLIF在术后前2周导致的功能障碍更低。此外,MIS手术方式下下背部疼痛达到平稳期的时间提前了约4周。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/b0cbc6c42255/ns-2550096-048f7.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/f10d8e918efc/ns-2550096-048f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/3456d247cd09/ns-2550096-048f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/82196ad011c2/ns-2550096-048f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/ecb67724a1ae/ns-2550096-048f4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/9ff176ca134a/ns-2550096-048f5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/31b42ee19461/ns-2550096-048f6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/b0cbc6c42255/ns-2550096-048f7.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/f10d8e918efc/ns-2550096-048f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/3456d247cd09/ns-2550096-048f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/82196ad011c2/ns-2550096-048f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/ecb67724a1ae/ns-2550096-048f4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/9ff176ca134a/ns-2550096-048f5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/31b42ee19461/ns-2550096-048f6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e782/12010849/b0cbc6c42255/ns-2550096-048f7.jpg

相似文献

1
Distinct Recovery Patterns After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Minimally Invasive and Open Approaches Using Mixed-Effects Segmented Regression.经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术后的不同恢复模式:使用混合效应分段回归比较微创与开放手术方法
Neurospine. 2025 Mar;22(1):3-13. doi: 10.14245/ns.2550096.048. Epub 2025 Mar 31.
2
Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Versus Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spinal Pathology: Clinical Outcome Comparison in Patients With Predominant Back Pain.微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与侧方腰椎体间融合术治疗退行性脊柱病变:以腰痛为主诉患者的临床疗效比较。
Clin Spine Surg. 2024 Dec 1;37(10):E441-E447. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001631. Epub 2024 Oct 25.
3
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.
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
Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis.评估可活动扩张式椎间融合器在微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症中的影像学和临床结果。
Neurosurg Focus. 2018 Jan;44(1):E8. doi: 10.3171/2017.10.FOCUS17562.
6
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.
7
Examination of clinical and radiographic outcomes after lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective analysis of TLIF, MidLIF, and MIS-TLIF procedures.腰椎椎间融合术后临床及影像学结果的检查:经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术、腰椎中间椎体间融合术和微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术的回顾性分析
J Neurosurg Spine. 2025 May 2;43(1):52-62. doi: 10.3171/2025.1.SPINE241286. Print 2025 Jul 1.
8
Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective observational study.微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术与内镜下腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的比较:一项回顾性观察研究。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 May 27;18(1):389. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-03875-6.
9
Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for degenerative lumbar diseases: a retrospective cohort study.单侧入路微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(Mis-TLIF)与双侧减压开放 TLIF 治疗退行性腰椎疾病的比较:回顾性队列研究。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Feb 20;19(1):150. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04630-1.
10
Minimally invasive versus mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in managing low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与小切口经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗低度退变性腰椎滑脱症的比较。
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024 Sep 12;166(1):365. doi: 10.1007/s00701-024-06231-7.

本文引用的文献

1
Temporal Trends of Improvement After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术后改善情况的时间趋势
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2025 Jan 15;50(2):81-87. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000005024. Epub 2024 May 6.
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
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.
4
Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Low-Grade Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.微创腰椎减压术与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗低度腰椎退变性椎体滑脱的比较
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 Nov 1;47(21):1505-1514. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004432. Epub 2022 Jul 15.
5
Linear mixed models to handle missing at random data in trial-based economic evaluations.基于试验的经济学评价中处理随机缺失数据的线性混合效应模型。
Health Econ. 2022 Jun;31(6):1276-1287. doi: 10.1002/hec.4510. Epub 2022 Apr 2.
6
Segmented Regression in an Interrupted Time Series Study Design.中断时间序列研究设计中的分段回归
Anesth Analg. 2021 Mar 1;132(3):696-697. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005269.
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
Modelling the effect of a dedicated hip fracture unit on patient outcomes using segmented robust linear regression techniques.使用分段稳健线性回归技术对专门的髋部骨折单元对患者结局的影响进行建模。
Injury. 2021 Sep;52 Suppl 5:S3-S6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.03.056. Epub 2020 May 11.
9
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.
10
The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners.REDCap 联盟:构建软件平台合作伙伴的国际社区。
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208. Epub 2019 May 9.