首页> 外文期刊>Indian journal of orthopaedics >Comparison of the early results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic lumbar instability
【24h】

Comparison of the early results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic lumbar instability

机译:经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术与后路腰椎间融合术治疗有症状的腰椎不稳的早期结果比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background:Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been preferred to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for different spinal disorders but there had been no study comparing their outcome in lumbar instability. A comparative retrospective analysis of the early results of TLIF and PLIF in symptomatic lumbar instability was conducted between 2005 and 2011.Materials and Methods:Review of the records of 102 operated cases of lumbar instability with minimum 1 year followup was done. A total of 52 cases (11 men and 41 women, mean age 46 years SD 05.88, range 40-59 years) underwent PLIF and 50 cases (14 men and 36 women, mean age 49 years SD 06.88, range 40-59 years) underwent TLIF. The surgical time, duration of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss were compared. Self-evaluated low back pain and leg pain status (using Visual Analog Score), disability outcome (using Oswestry disability questionnaire) was analyzed. Radiological structural restoration (e.g., disc height, foraminal height, lordotic angle, and slip reduction), stability (using Posner criteria), fusion (using Hackenberg criteria), and overall functional outcome (using MacNab's criteria) were compared.Results:Pain, disability, neurology, and overall functional status were significantly improved in both groups but PLIF required more operative time and caused more blood loss. Postoperative hospital stay, structural restoration, stability, and fusion had no significant difference but neural complications were relatively more with PLIF.Conclusions:Both methods were effective in relieving symptoms, achieving structural restoration, stability, and fusion, but TLIF had been associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, and lesser complication rates for which it can be preferred for symptomatic lumbar instability.
机译:背景:对于不同的脊柱疾病,经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)优于后路腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF),但尚无研究比较其在腰椎不稳中的疗效。对2005年至2011年间TLIF和PLIF治疗有症状的腰椎不稳的早期结果进行了比较回顾性分析。材料与方法:回顾了102例经手术的腰椎不稳病例,至少随访1年。接受PLIF治疗的病例共52例(男11例,女41例,平均年龄SD 05.88,范围40-59岁)和50例(男14例和36女,平均年龄49岁SD 06.88,范围40-59岁)进行了TLIF。比较手术时间,住院时间,术中失血量。对自我评估的腰痛和腿痛状况(使用视觉模拟评分),残疾结果(使用Oswestry残疾问卷)进行了分析。比较了放射学上的结构恢复(例如椎间盘高度,椎间孔高度,脊柱前凸角和滑移减少),稳定性(使用Posner准则),融合(使用Hackenberg准则)和整体功能结局(使用MacNab准则)。两组的残疾,神经病学和整体功能状态均得到显着改善,但PLIF需要更多的手术时间并导致更多的失血。术后住院,结构恢复,稳定性和融合无显着差异,但神经并发症在PLIF治疗中相对较多。手术时间短,失血少,并发症少,对于有症状的腰椎不稳者更可取。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号