medigraphic.com
ISSN 0301-696X (Print)
Órgano de difusión del Servicio de Sanidad Militar y del Colegio Nacional de Médicos Militares

2018, Number 5-6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Sanid Milit Mex 2018; 72 (5-6)

Comparative evaluation of primary lumbar decompression by minimally invasive vs conventional technique

Acosta-Argüelles JG, Sierra-Pérez M, Ceballos-Sánchez JA, Abdo-Toro MA, Domínguez-Cortinas F

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 305-310
PDF size: 190.57 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Lumbar decompression is one of the main surgeries scheduled in orthopedics, it is necessary to identify the benefits and complications of each type of approach. Objective: Comparison of conventional and minimally invasive (MI) approaches. Material and methods: Cross-sectional, descriptive, comparative study of minimally invasive versus conventional primary lumbar decompression. Results: 36 patients divided into 2 groups, 28 (77.7%) were conventional and 8 (22.3%) were minimally invasive, average age 7 years younger in MI (MI average 52.2 ± 8 years versus 59.8 ± 9, t Student p = 0.04), similarly measured dysfunction. They begin wandering 24 hours before (median of 24 hours against 48 hours in conventional, Mann Whitney U p = 0.012), reduction of 1.5 days of stay (median of 2.5 versus = five days in conventional, p = 0.017), and post-surgical pain in MI. Minor blood loss in MI (median of 200 in conventional versus 65 mL, Mann Whitney U p = 0.09), complications, 1 surgical site infection, 1 surgical site hematoma, 1 inadequate implant placement and 1 dura mater lesion. Conclusions: It was demonstrated the superiority of the MI in several aspects, and the effectiveness of the Oswestry test for the functional evaluation of the strait lumbar channel.


REFERENCES

  1. Soto-Padilla M, Espinosa-Mendoza RL, Sandoval-García JP, Gómez-García H. Frecuencia de lumbalgia y su tratamiento en un hospital privado de la Ciudad de México Hospital Ángeles Mocel. Acta Mexicana de Ortopedia. 29: 40-45.

  2. Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, Bae SC. The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine. 2006; 31.

  3. Nicholson JA, Scott CEH, Duckworth AD, Burke JG, Gibson JNA. Survival analysis of the Wallis interspinous spacer used as an augment to lumbar decompression. Br J Neurosurg. 2017; 8: 1-7.

  4. Hart DL, Stratford PW, Werneke MW, Deutscher D, Wang YC. Lumbar computerized adaptive test and modified Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire: relative validity and important change. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012; 42 (6): 541-551. Epub 2012 Apr 19.

  5. Scheufler K, Domen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery. 2007; 60: 203-213.

  6. Weaver EN. Lateral intramuscular planar approach to the lumbar spine and sacrum. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007; 7: 270-273.

  7. Togawa D, Kayanja M, Reinhardt MK, Shoham M, Balter A, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Benzel EC, Lieberman IH. Bone-mounted miniature robotic guidance for pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw placement: part 2-evaluation of system accuracy. Neurosurgery. 2007; 60: 129-139.

  8. Kim DH, Jaikumar S, Kam AC. Minimally invasive spine surgery neurosurgery. 2002; 51: S1-14.

  9. Fernández-Fairen M, Sala P, Ramírez H et al. A prospective randomized study of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2007; 32: 395-401.

  10. Liu H, Xu Y, Yang SD, Wang T, Wang H, Liu FY, Ding WY. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96: 21.

  11. Kovacs F, Urrútia G, Alarcón J. Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Spine. 2011; 36: 1335-1351.

  12. Watters WC 3rd, Baisden J, Gilbert TJ et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2008; 8: 305-310.

  13. Zhao J, Zhang F, Chen X et al. Posterior interbody fusion using a diagonal cage with unilateral transpedicular screw fixation for lumbar stenosis. J Clin Neuroscience. 2011; 18: 324-328.

  14. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 794-810.

  15. Mummaneni PV, Rodts GE. The mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 2005; 57: 256-261.

  16. Ozgur BM, Hughes SA, Baird LC, Taylor WR. Minimally disruptive decompression and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2006; 6: 27-33.

  17. Yue JJ, Long W. Full endoscopic spinal surgery techniques: advancements, indications, and outcomes. Int J Spine Surg. 2015; 20: 9-17.

  18. Van Hooff ML, Mannion AF, Staub LP, Ostelo RW, Fairbank JC. Determination of the Oswestry disability index score equivalent to a “satisfactory symptom state” in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine: a spine tango registry-based study. The Spine Journal. 2016; 16: 1221-1230.

  19. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Lee NE, Mason A. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int. 2010; 1: 12.

  20. Yamashita K, Higashino K, Sakai T, Takata Y, Hayashi F et al Percutaneous full endoscopic lumbar foraminoplasty for adjacent level foraminal stenosis following vertebral intersegmental fusion in an awake and aware patient under local anesthesia: a case report. J Med Invest. 2017; 64 (34): 291-295.

  21. Avila MJ, Walter CM, Baaj AA. Outcomes and complications of minimally invasive surgery of the lumbar spine in the elderly. Cureus. 2016; 756-768.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com