Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Navigated 2-level posterior lumbar fusion: a 5-cm-incision procedure

Authors: Yu Wang, Hong Liu, Yongkai Hu, Xiaodong Yi, Chunde Li

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The current study presents a technique (navigated posterior lumbar fusion) which takes a 5-cm incision to accomplish a 2-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) and compared its efficacy and efficiency with those of conventional PLF.

Methods

Forty patients who were indicated for 2-level lumbar fusion were included and randomized to either navigated PLF group or conventional PLF group. Blood loss, operation time, incision length, complications, bed rest period, and length of hospitalization were recorded. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scoring was also performed for each patient before surgery, 3 months after surgery, and 2 years after surgery.

Results

The incision length was significantly shorter in the navigated PLF group than in the conventional PLF group (4.8 vs. 10.9 cm, p = 0.001). Accordingly, the blood loss was also significantly less in the navigated PLF group than in the conventional PLF group (209.0 vs. 334.0 ml, p = 0.047). There was no significant difference in total operation time between the two groups (160.7 vs. 144.4 min, p = 0.116). Compared to the conventional PLF group, the navigated PLF group showed significantly less postoperative blood loss, less time to mobilization, and shorter length of hospital stay. The ODI score improved significantly in the both groups immediately after surgery, and maintained well in the following 2 years.

Conclusion

Compared to conventional PLF, navigated PLF proved to be superior with regard to incision length, blood loss, time to mobilization, and shorter length of hospital stay.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18:S1–6.PubMedCrossRef Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18:S1–6.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(2):98–105.PubMedCrossRef Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(2):98–105.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(4 Suppl 2):203–12.PubMed Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(4 Suppl 2):203–12.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach OR traditional open approach. spine. 2007;32(5):537–43.PubMedCrossRef Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach OR traditional open approach. spine. 2007;32(5):537–43.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9:560–5.PubMedCrossRef Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9:560–5.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao X. Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J. 2009;19:316–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao X. Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J. 2009;19:316–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009;33:1683–88.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009;33:1683–88.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(6):1171–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(6):1171–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(10):1780–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(10):1780–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Sakaura H, Yamashita T, Miwa T. Outcomes of 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(1):90–4.PubMedCrossRef Sakaura H, Yamashita T, Miwa T. Outcomes of 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(1):90–4.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hioki A, Miyamoto K, Kodama H. Two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease: improved clinical outcome with restoration of lumbar lordosis. Spine J. 2005;5(6):600–7.PubMedCrossRef Hioki A, Miyamoto K, Kodama H. Two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease: improved clinical outcome with restoration of lumbar lordosis. Spine J. 2005;5(6):600–7.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Scarone P, Lepeintre JF, Bennis S. Two-levels mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technical note. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2009;52(5–6):275–80.PubMedCrossRef Scarone P, Lepeintre JF, Bennis S. Two-levels mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technical note. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2009;52(5–6):275–80.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Reinshagen C, Ruess D, Walcott BP. A novel minimally invasive technique for lumbar decompression, realignment, and navigated interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(9):1484–90.PubMedCrossRef Reinshagen C, Ruess D, Walcott BP. A novel minimally invasive technique for lumbar decompression, realignment, and navigated interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(9):1484–90.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Navigated 2-level posterior lumbar fusion: a 5-cm-incision procedure
Authors
Yu Wang
Hong Liu
Yongkai Hu
Xiaodong Yi
Chunde Li
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0338-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1/2016 Go to the issue