Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note and an Outcome Comparison with the Conventional Minimally Invasive Fusion.

IF 1.7 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopedic Research and Reviews Pub Date : 2021-11-24 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.2147/ORR.S336479
Asrafi Rizki Gatam, Luthfi Gatam, Harmantya Mahadhipta, Ajiantoro Ajiantoro, Omar Luthfi, Dina Aprilya
{"title":"Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note and an Outcome Comparison with the Conventional Minimally Invasive Fusion.","authors":"Asrafi Rizki Gatam,&nbsp;Luthfi Gatam,&nbsp;Harmantya Mahadhipta,&nbsp;Ajiantoro Ajiantoro,&nbsp;Omar Luthfi,&nbsp;Dina Aprilya","doi":"10.2147/ORR.S336479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the past few decades, the minimally invasive technique for spine surgery has developed extensively from the scope of decompression until fusion surgeries to reduce damages to the normal anatomical structure. Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) is one of the fusion options which is readily available without a sophisticated minimal invasive instrument. Our aim is to introduce ULIF experience in our center and comparing the result with conventional minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort study of 145 lumbar spondylolisthesis cases that underwent fusion surgery with either ULIF or the conventional MIS-TLIF. All of the patients were observed within a 12-month follow-up period to evaluate the back pain and leg pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and fusion rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The leg pain VAS was similarly improved in both groups. ULIF has a significant back pain improvement on direct post operation and at the 3-months follow-up (<i>p</i> value 0.032 and 0.046 respectively). ULIF group also had a significantly better improvement of ODI scores on the early post-operative period (<i>p</i>=0.045). However, both groups similarly showed improvement of ODI score and the SF-36 at the 3-, 6-, and 12- months follow up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Full endoscopic fusion surgery with ULIF offers a comparable long-term outcome and a significantly better back pain VAS reduction in short-term follow up compared to the conventional MIS-TLIF. ULIF, with further improvement, can be the next gold standard in managing degenerative lumbar spine conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":19608,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Research and Reviews","volume":"13 ","pages":"229-239"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/08/1e/orr-13-229.PMC8628045.pdf","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S336479","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Background: In the past few decades, the minimally invasive technique for spine surgery has developed extensively from the scope of decompression until fusion surgeries to reduce damages to the normal anatomical structure. Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) is one of the fusion options which is readily available without a sophisticated minimal invasive instrument. Our aim is to introduce ULIF experience in our center and comparing the result with conventional minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 145 lumbar spondylolisthesis cases that underwent fusion surgery with either ULIF or the conventional MIS-TLIF. All of the patients were observed within a 12-month follow-up period to evaluate the back pain and leg pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and fusion rate.

Results: The leg pain VAS was similarly improved in both groups. ULIF has a significant back pain improvement on direct post operation and at the 3-months follow-up (p value 0.032 and 0.046 respectively). ULIF group also had a significantly better improvement of ODI scores on the early post-operative period (p=0.045). However, both groups similarly showed improvement of ODI score and the SF-36 at the 3-, 6-, and 12- months follow up.

Conclusion: Full endoscopic fusion surgery with ULIF offers a comparable long-term outcome and a significantly better back pain VAS reduction in short-term follow up compared to the conventional MIS-TLIF. ULIF, with further improvement, can be the next gold standard in managing degenerative lumbar spine conditions.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
单侧双门静脉内窥镜腰椎椎体间融合术:技术要点及与传统微创融合术的疗效比较。
背景:在过去的几十年里,脊柱手术的微创技术得到了广泛的发展,从减压到融合手术,以减少对正常解剖结构的损伤。单侧双门静脉内窥镜腰椎椎体间融合术(ULIF)是一种无需复杂微创器械即可实现的融合术。我们的目的是介绍我们中心的经验,并将其与传统的微创腰椎椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)的结果进行比较。方法:这是一项回顾性队列研究,对145例腰椎滑脱患者进行了融合手术,无论是用ULIF还是传统的MIS-TLIF。所有患者在12个月的随访期间观察背痛和腿部疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)、36项简短健康调查(SF-36)和融合率。结果:两组患者下肢疼痛VAS评分均有相似改善。术后直接和随访3个月时,ULIF组背部疼痛均有显著改善(p值分别为0.032和0.046)。术后早期,ULIF组ODI评分也有明显改善(p=0.045)。然而,在3个月、6个月和12个月的随访中,两组的ODI评分和SF-36均有相似的改善。结论:与传统的MIS-TLIF相比,全内窥镜融合手术与ULIF提供了相当的长期结果,并且在短期随访中明显更好地减少了背部疼痛VAS。随着进一步的改善,ULIF可以成为治疗腰椎退行性疾病的下一个金标准。
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
Orthopedic Research and Reviews
Orthopedic Research and Reviews Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopedic Research and Reviews is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on the patho-physiology of the musculoskeletal system, trauma, surgery and other corrective interventions to restore mobility and function. Advances in new technologies, materials, techniques and pharmacological agents will be particularly welcome. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Patho-physiology and bioengineering, Technologies and materials science, Surgical techniques, including robotics, Trauma management and care, Treatment including pharmacological and non-pharmacological, Rehabilitation and Multidisciplinarian care approaches, Patient quality of life, satisfaction and preference, Health economic evaluations. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, basic science and technology, clinical studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, case reports and extended reports.
期刊最新文献
Current Status of Vertebral Body Tethering for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: An Umbrella Review. Injection of Amniotic Membrane and Umbilical Cord Particulate for Muscle and Ligament Tears in Collegiate Football Athletes: A Single-Center, Retrospective Study. Exploring Musculoskeletal Injuries and Personalized Recovery Management in Athletes [Response to Letter]. Ultrasound-Guided Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block in Combination with Sciatic Nerve Block for Pain Reduction in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study. Bilateral Stress Fractures of Amputated Tibial Stumps in the Setting of Chronic Compartment Syndrome.
×
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