We have located links that may give you full text access.
Does minimally invasive fusion technique influence surgical outcomes in isthmic spondylolisthesis?
Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies : MITAT 2018 September 29
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and radiographic results between open transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF-O) and minimally invasive TLIF (TLIF-M) for single-level low grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS).
METHODS: This study enrolled 45 patients who underwent single-level TLIF with low grade IS. The patients were divided into two groups according to operative method: TLIF-M (20 patients) and TLIF-O (25 patients). TLIF-O group was matched with TLIF-M.
RESULTS: At one-year postoperatively, there were no significant differences in any radiologic parameters between the two groups. Perioperative results such as blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay were superior in TLIF-M than in TLIF-O. Fusion was achieved in 17 of 20 patients (85.0%) in TLIF-M and 23 of 25 (92.0%) patients in TLIF-O. Back Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of TLIF-O were significantly lower than TLIF-M at one (back VAS, ODI) and six months (ODI) postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: TLIF-M and TLIF-O produced similar clinical and radiological outcomes, including reduction of spondylolisthesis and disc space height restoration at one-year follow-up for single-level low grade IS. However, considering perioperative outcomes, back pain, and quality of life, TLIF-M might be a better option for single-level low grade IS compared to TLIF-O.
METHODS: This study enrolled 45 patients who underwent single-level TLIF with low grade IS. The patients were divided into two groups according to operative method: TLIF-M (20 patients) and TLIF-O (25 patients). TLIF-O group was matched with TLIF-M.
RESULTS: At one-year postoperatively, there were no significant differences in any radiologic parameters between the two groups. Perioperative results such as blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay were superior in TLIF-M than in TLIF-O. Fusion was achieved in 17 of 20 patients (85.0%) in TLIF-M and 23 of 25 (92.0%) patients in TLIF-O. Back Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of TLIF-O were significantly lower than TLIF-M at one (back VAS, ODI) and six months (ODI) postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: TLIF-M and TLIF-O produced similar clinical and radiological outcomes, including reduction of spondylolisthesis and disc space height restoration at one-year follow-up for single-level low grade IS. However, considering perioperative outcomes, back pain, and quality of life, TLIF-M might be a better option for single-level low grade IS compared to TLIF-O.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app