Single position lateral lumbar interbody fusion with navigated percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: technique modification with resultant resource usage optimisation.

Q1 Medicine Journal of spine surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-23 Epub Date: 2024-08-15 DOI:10.21037/jss-24-20
Yong Yao Tan, Joseph Jon Yin Wan, Thayaparren Rajendram, Lilian Ow, Mon Hnin Tun, Hong Lee Terry Teo
{"title":"Single position lateral lumbar interbody fusion with navigated percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: technique modification with resultant resource usage optimisation.","authors":"Yong Yao Tan, Joseph Jon Yin Wan, Thayaparren Rajendram, Lilian Ow, Mon Hnin Tun, Hong Lee Terry Teo","doi":"10.21037/jss-24-20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is an increase in the volume of elective lumbar fusion surgeries. Various techniques have been described however the literature on cost comparisons of different fusion techniques is sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate resource utilisation of single position (SP) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) compared to dual position (DP) LLIF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included all patients who underwent single-stage anterior to psoas (ATP) LLIF with navigated percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation by the senior author between September 2020 and September 2023. Demographic details, operative variables (duration of surgery, SP/DP) and complications (intra-operative, post-operative) were included. Variables related to resource usage included length of stay, implant fee, consumables fee, anaesthetist fee and facility fee.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 6 patients in the SP group and 14 patients in the DP group. None of the patients had intra-operative complications. SP group was associated with a 44.6% decrease in the length of stay (P=0.023) compared to the DP group, holding CCI and levels constant. The median operative time for the SP and DP groups were 150 and 282.5 min respectively (P<0.001). The median consumables fee ($2,509 <i>vs.</i> $3,839, P<0.001) for the SP group were lower than the DP group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SP LLIF with navigated PPS insertion described in this paper is a minimally invasive technique with reduced resource usage compared to DP LLIF.</p>","PeriodicalId":17131,"journal":{"name":"Journal of spine surgery","volume":"10 3","pages":"479-487"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11467288/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of spine surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-24-20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is an increase in the volume of elective lumbar fusion surgeries. Various techniques have been described however the literature on cost comparisons of different fusion techniques is sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate resource utilisation of single position (SP) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) compared to dual position (DP) LLIF.

Methods: This retrospective study included all patients who underwent single-stage anterior to psoas (ATP) LLIF with navigated percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation by the senior author between September 2020 and September 2023. Demographic details, operative variables (duration of surgery, SP/DP) and complications (intra-operative, post-operative) were included. Variables related to resource usage included length of stay, implant fee, consumables fee, anaesthetist fee and facility fee.

Results: There were 6 patients in the SP group and 14 patients in the DP group. None of the patients had intra-operative complications. SP group was associated with a 44.6% decrease in the length of stay (P=0.023) compared to the DP group, holding CCI and levels constant. The median operative time for the SP and DP groups were 150 and 282.5 min respectively (P<0.001). The median consumables fee ($2,509 vs. $3,839, P<0.001) for the SP group were lower than the DP group.

Conclusions: SP LLIF with navigated PPS insertion described in this paper is a minimally invasive technique with reduced resource usage compared to DP LLIF.

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
采用导航经皮椎弓根螺钉固定的单位置侧腰椎椎间融合术:技术改进与资源使用优化。
背景:择期腰椎融合手术的数量不断增加。然而,有关不同融合技术成本比较的文献却很少。本研究旨在评估单体位(SP)侧腰椎椎间融合术(LLIF)与双体位(DP)LLIF的资源利用率:这项回顾性研究纳入了 2020 年 9 月至 2023 年 9 月期间由资深作者接受导航经皮椎弓根螺钉(PPS)固定的单段腰椎前路(ATP)LLIF 的所有患者。数据包括人口统计学细节、手术变量(手术时间、SP/DP)和并发症(术中、术后)。与资源使用相关的变量包括住院时间、植入物费用、消耗品费用、麻醉师费用和设施费用:结果:SP 组有 6 名患者,DP 组有 14 名患者。没有一名患者出现术中并发症。在 CCI 和水平不变的情况下,与 DP 组相比,SP 组的住院时间缩短了 44.6%(P=0.023)。SP组和DP组的中位手术时间分别为150分钟和282.5分钟(Pvs.3,839美元,PC结论):与 DP LLIF 相比,本文所述的导航式 PPS 插入 SP LLIF 是一种微创技术,可减少资源使用。
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
Journal of spine surgery
Journal of spine surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
A comparative cadaveric biomechanical study of bilateral FacetFuse® transfacet pedicle screws versus bilateral or unilateral pedicle screw-rod construct. Advancing the design of interspinous fixation devices for improved biomechanical performance: dual vs. single-locking set screw mechanisms and symmetrical vs. asymmetrical plate designs. Best practices guidelines in the postoperative management of patients who underwent cervical and lumbar fusions. Blood loss during three column osteotomies: influence on outcomes and mitigation strategies. Bone graft substitutes used in anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a contemporary systematic review of fusion rates and complications.
×
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