2017
DOI: 10.2147/tcrm.s117063
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and traditional posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion in obese patients with lumbar disk prolapse

Abstract: ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the curative effect between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in obese patients with lumbar disk prolapse.Patients and methodsIn this study, 72 patients who underwent lumbar disk prolapse therapy in the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University between March 2011 and 2015 were retrospectively analyzed and were divided into two groups, MIS-TLIF group (n=35) and PLIF group (n=37), ac… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Standalone OLIF inpatients with mild lumbar spondylolisthesis could be associated with a concern about complications, especially cage subsidence. Based on the present study, a T score warning line of <− 2.5 or body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m 2 could be associated with worse outcomes of standalone OLIF [19]. Of course, cage subsidence may occur after OLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation as well, but theoretically pedicle screw fixation could add more protection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Standalone OLIF inpatients with mild lumbar spondylolisthesis could be associated with a concern about complications, especially cage subsidence. Based on the present study, a T score warning line of <− 2.5 or body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m 2 could be associated with worse outcomes of standalone OLIF [19]. Of course, cage subsidence may occur after OLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation as well, but theoretically pedicle screw fixation could add more protection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Reducing the need for retraction of the nerve root and thecal sac, avoiding the need and risk to enter the abdominal cavity, preserving the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments, not devitalizing adjacent soft tissues, allowing the disc space to be accessed unilaterally, and preserving the contralateral facet complex are strategies that might enhance outcome. In addition, decreased blood loss, decreased postoperative pain, decreased hospital stay, lower infections rates, [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] and possibly decreased degeneration of the adjacent spinal levels would be expected to offer further refinement of therapeutic intent. 32 The stated goal of the MIS-TLIF approach is fusion of the painful segments; this has been reported to be equivalent to corresponding open procedures 26,[33][34][35][36][37][38] with fusion rates consistently over 90% when using rh-BMP-2 (InFUSE).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The PLIF requires an extensive dissection of the paraspinal tissue as well as prolonged soft tissue retraction (13). Other complications include significant perioperative bleeding, postoperative radiculopathy secondary to the prolonged retraction of the dural sac, dural tear, and postoperative muscular atrophy caused by denervation during the approach (4,14). Harms et al (15), described the TLIF as an alternative to PLIF.…”
Section: Advantages and Disadvantages Of The Lumbar Fusion Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%