Systemic Inflammatory Markers and Clinical Outcomes of Open versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management Pub Date : 2024-05-07 DOI:10.2147/tcrm.s447394
Liwen Feng, Junbo Liang, Naiguo Wang, Qingyu Zhang
{"title":"Systemic Inflammatory Markers and Clinical Outcomes of Open versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion","authors":"Liwen Feng, Junbo Liang, Naiguo Wang, Qingyu Zhang","doi":"10.2147/tcrm.s447394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Purpose:</strong> The purpose of this study is to preliminarily assess the change in perioperative systemic inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes between open TLIF and BE-TLIF procedures.<br/><strong>Patients and Methods:</strong> In total, 38 patients who underwent single-level lumbar fusion surgery (L4-5 or L5-S1) were retrospectively reviewed. 19 patients were treated by the BE-TLIF technique, while the other patients were managed using open TLIF. The perioperative serum C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR), and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) of the two groups were compared to determine if there was a statistical difference. Meanwhile, clinical evaluations were conducted to assess various factors including operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), drainage catheter stay, length of hospitalization, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores.<br/><strong>Results:</strong> The perioperative analysis revealed that BE-TLIF cases experienced a longer operative duration than open TLIF cases (open TLIF: 138.63 ± 31.59 min, BE-TLIF: 204.58 ± 49.37 min, p &lt; 0.001). Meanwhile, the EBL showed an increased trend in the BE-TLIF group (260.7 ± 211.9 mL) in comparison with the open TLIF group (200.9 ± 211.9 mL) (p =0.485). In terms of systemic inflammatory markers, the mean postoperative CRP, NLR, LMR, and PLR were lower in the BE-TLIF group than in the open TLIF group, although these differences were not statistically significant (p &gt; 0.05). The VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved after surgery (p &lt; 0.05).<br/><strong>Conclusion:</strong> There was no significant difference found between BE-TLIF and open TLIF in terms of systemic inflammatory markers, and clinical outcomes. Overall, BE-TLIF can be considered a viable choice for lumbar canal decompression and interbody fusion for less invasion. It is worth noting that BE-TLIF does have a longer operation time, indicating that there is still potential for further improvement in this technique.<br/><br/><strong>Keywords:</strong> transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, unilateral biportal endoscope, systemic inflammatory markers<br/>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.s447394","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to preliminarily assess the change in perioperative systemic inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes between open TLIF and BE-TLIF procedures.
Patients and Methods: In total, 38 patients who underwent single-level lumbar fusion surgery (L4-5 or L5-S1) were retrospectively reviewed. 19 patients were treated by the BE-TLIF technique, while the other patients were managed using open TLIF. The perioperative serum C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR), and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) of the two groups were compared to determine if there was a statistical difference. Meanwhile, clinical evaluations were conducted to assess various factors including operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), drainage catheter stay, length of hospitalization, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores.
Results: The perioperative analysis revealed that BE-TLIF cases experienced a longer operative duration than open TLIF cases (open TLIF: 138.63 ± 31.59 min, BE-TLIF: 204.58 ± 49.37 min, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, the EBL showed an increased trend in the BE-TLIF group (260.7 ± 211.9 mL) in comparison with the open TLIF group (200.9 ± 211.9 mL) (p =0.485). In terms of systemic inflammatory markers, the mean postoperative CRP, NLR, LMR, and PLR were lower in the BE-TLIF group than in the open TLIF group, although these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: There was no significant difference found between BE-TLIF and open TLIF in terms of systemic inflammatory markers, and clinical outcomes. Overall, BE-TLIF can be considered a viable choice for lumbar canal decompression and interbody fusion for less invasion. It is worth noting that BE-TLIF does have a longer operation time, indicating that there is still potential for further improvement in this technique.

Keywords: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, unilateral biportal endoscope, systemic inflammatory markers
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开放式与双ortal 内窥镜经椎间孔腰椎椎体融合术的全身炎症指标和临床疗效比较
目的:本研究旨在初步评估开放式TLIF和BE-TLIF手术围手术期全身炎症指标的变化和临床结果:回顾性分析了38例接受单水平腰椎融合手术(L4-5或L5-S1)的患者。19名患者接受了BE-TLIF技术治疗,其他患者则接受了开放式TLIF治疗。比较了两组患者围手术期血清 C 反应蛋白(CRP)、中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值(NLR)、淋巴细胞/单核细胞比值(LMR)和血小板/淋巴细胞比值(PLR),以确定是否存在统计学差异。同时,还进行了临床评估,以评估各种因素,包括手术时间、估计失血量(EBL)、引流导管留置时间、住院时间、视觉模拟量表(VAS)和 Oswestry 残疾指数(ODI)评分:围手术期分析显示,BE-TLIF 病例的手术时间长于开放式 TLIF 病例(开放式 TLIF:138.63±31.59 分钟,BE-TLIF:204.58±49.37 分钟,P < 0.001)。同时,与开放式 TLIF 组(200.9 ± 211.9 mL)相比,BE-TLIF 组的 EBL 呈上升趋势(260.7 ± 211.9 mL)(p =0.485)。在全身炎症指标方面,BE-TLIF 组的术后 CRP、NLR、LMR 和 PLR 平均值低于开放式 TLIF 组,但差异无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。两组的 VAS 和 ODI 评分在术后均有明显改善(p < 0.05):结论:BE-TLIF 和开放式 TLIF 在全身炎症指标和临床疗效方面无明显差异。总之,BE-TLIF 是一种可行的腰椎管减压和椎间融合术,其创伤较小。值得注意的是,BE-TLIF 的手术时间较长,这表明该技术仍有进一步改进的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
139
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas. The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
期刊最新文献
Experts’ Opinion in Fabry Disease Management and the Unmet Medical Need: The Saudi Perspective Thromboelastography in Long-Term Antiplatelet Therapy for Patients Diagnosed with Benign Prostate Hyperplasia Undergoing Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: A Retrospective Study Drug Therapy Problems Identified by Clinical Pharmacists at a General Surgery Ward of an Academic Referral Hospital in Jordan Time in Therapeutic Range of Unfractionated Heparin-Based Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia Umbilical Vascular Thromboembolism: High-Risk Factors, Diagnosis, Management, and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Scoping Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1