...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research >Disc space preparation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A comparison of minimally invasive and open approaches
【24h】

Disc space preparation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A comparison of minimally invasive and open approaches

机译:经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术中椎间盘的准备:微创和开放方法的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Background: Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have been developed as an alternative to the open approach. However, concerns remain regarding the adequacy of disc space preparation that can be achieved through a minimally invasive approach to TLIF. Questions/purposes: The purpose of this cadaver study is to compare the adequacy of disc space preparation through MIS and open approaches to TLIF. Specifically we sought to compare the two approaches with respect to (1) the time required to perform a discectomy and the number of endplate violations; (2) the percentage of disc removed; and (3) the anatomic location where residual disc would remain after discectomy. Methods: Forty lumbar levels (ie, L1-2 to L5-S1 in eight fresh cadaver specimens) were randomly assigned to open and MIS groups. Both surgeons were fellowship-trained spine surgeons proficient in the assigned approach used. Time required for discectomy, endplate violations, and percentage of disc removed by volume and mass were recorded for each level. A digital imaging software program (ImageJ; US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used to measure the percent disc removed by area for the total disc and for each quadrant of the endplate. Results: The open approach was associated with a shorter discectomy time (9 versus 12 minutes, p = 0.01) and fewer endplate violations (one versus three, p = 0.04) when compared with an MIS approach, percent disc removed by volume (80% versus 77%, p = 0.41), percent disc removed by mass (77% versus 75%, p = 0.55), and percent total disc removed by area (73% versus 71%, p = 0.63) between the open and MIS approaches, respectively. The posterior contralateral quadrant was associated with the lowest percent of disc removed compared with the other three quadrants in both open and MIS groups (50% and 60%, respectively). Conclusions: When performed by a surgeon experienced with MIS TLIF, MIS and open approaches are similar in regard to the adequacy of disc space preparation. The least amount of disc by percentage is removed from the posterior contralateral quadrant regardless of the approach; surgeons should pay particular attention to this anatomic location during the discectomy portion of the procedure to minimize the likelihood of pseudarthrosis.
机译:背景:经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)的微创手术(MIS)方法已被开发为开放方法的替代方法。但是,对于通过TLIF的微创方法可以实现的磁盘空间准备是否足够仍然存在担忧。问题/目的:这项尸体研究的目的是比较通过MIS和TLIF的开放方法进行磁盘空间准备的适当性。具体来说,我们试图就(1)进行椎间盘切除术所需的时间和违反终板的次数比较两种方法。 (2)取出光盘的百分比; (3)椎间盘切除术后残留椎间盘的解剖位置。方法:将40个腰椎水平(即,在8个新鲜尸体标本中的L1-2至L5-S1)随机分为开放组和MIS组。两位外科医师都是接受过奖学金研究的脊柱外科医师,精通所使用的指定方法。记录每个级别的椎间盘切除术所需的时间,违反端板的情况以及按体积和质量取出椎间盘的百分比。使用数字成像软件程序(ImageJ;美国国立卫生研究院,贝塞斯达,马里兰州,美国)测量总盘片和端板每个象限按面积去除的盘片百分比。结果:与MIS方法相比,开放式方法与更短的椎间盘摘除时间(9分钟对12分钟,p = 0.01)和较少的终板侵犯(1对三例,p = 0.04)相关,按体积去除椎间盘百分比(80%)与77%,p = 0.41),按质量去除椎间盘百分比(77%与75%,p = 0.55),以及在开放式和MIS方法之间按面积去除的椎间盘总数百分比(73%对71%,p = 0.63) , 分别。与开放和MIS组的其他三个象限相比,后侧对侧象限与椎间盘切除率最低相关(分别为50%和60%)。结论:由具有MIS TLIF经验的外科医生进行时,MIS和开放方法在椎间盘空间准备是否充分方面相似。无论采用哪种方法,从后侧对侧象限中取出的椎间盘百分比均最少。在手术的椎间盘切除术部分期间,外科医生应特别注意该解剖位置,以最大程度地减少假关节的可能性。

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