Lumbar fusion through the anterolateral mini-approach: comparison of anterior interbody (OLIF-AF) and percutaneous pedicle (OLIF-PF) fixations in the surgical treatment of single-level stenosis

Q3 Medicine
Aleksandr Petrovich Saifullin, Alexandr Yakovlevich Aleynik, Andrei Evgenyevich Bokov, Sergey Gennadyevich Mlyavykh
{"title":"Lumbar fusion through the anterolateral mini-approach: comparison of anterior interbody (OLIF-AF) and percutaneous pedicle (OLIF-PF) fixations in the surgical treatment of single-level stenosis","authors":"Aleksandr Petrovich Saifullin, Alexandr Yakovlevich Aleynik, Andrei Evgenyevich Bokov, Sergey Gennadyevich Mlyavykh","doi":"10.14531/ss2023.3.50-62","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective. To perform comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety of indirect decompression of the spinal roots and interbody fusion through the lateral pre-psoas approach (OLIF) with anterolateral (OLIF-AF) and posterior percutaneous (OLIF-PF) screw fixations in the surgical treatment of single-segment lumbar stenosis. Material and Methods. A retrospective comparative analysis of treatment of 88 patients aged 29 to 72 years with single-level lumbar stenosis was carried out. Posterior instrumental fixation (OLIF-PF) was performed in 60 cases, and anterolateral (OLIF-AF) – in 28. Results. The compared groups did not statistically significantly differ from each other in terms of age, gender, body mass index, clinical picture and duration of symptoms before surgery, assessment of neurological status according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), preoperative diagnosis, localization of stenosis, pain assessment in the back and leg before surgery according to a digital rating scale, physical status (ASA), health assessment (SF-12, ODI), follow-up period, as well as smoking and the presence of comorbidities (p > 0.05). In the OLIF-AF group, compared to the OLIF-PF group, a statistically significant advantage was found in terms of blood loss, duration of surgery and anesthesia, the level of radiological exposure, duration of patient’s hospitalization and hospital stay in the postoperative period, as well as the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and intraoperative volume of infusions (p < 0.05). Despite earlier discharge and less use of local anesthesia (35.7 % vs 73.3 %; p = 0.001), patients in the OLIF-AF group had statistically significantly lower level of back pain on the day of discharge (3.0 vs 3.5; p = 0.034) and were less likely to need opioids (3.6 % vs 31.7 %; p = 0.003). With regard to complications and adverse events, there were no statistically significant differences during dynamic follow-up period from 3 to 50 months in both groups (17.9 % vs 28.3 %; p = 0.290), including depending on the timing of complications (early or late). In addition, no statistically significant differences were found for neurological, infectious, gastrointestinal, urological, or implant-related complications (p > 0.05). Conclusions. Indirect decompression of the spinal roots and interbody fusion through the lateral pre-psoas approach in combination with OLIF-AF is an effective and safe technique for the surgical treatment of single-segment lumbar stenosis. This method allows to reduce the invasiveness of surgery and severity of the pain syndrome and to create conditions for enhanced recovery after surgery. Further multicenter randomized trials are needed to comprehensively evaluate long-term outcomes.","PeriodicalId":37253,"journal":{"name":"Hirurgia Pozvonochnika","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hirurgia Pozvonochnika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2023.3.50-62","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective. To perform comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety of indirect decompression of the spinal roots and interbody fusion through the lateral pre-psoas approach (OLIF) with anterolateral (OLIF-AF) and posterior percutaneous (OLIF-PF) screw fixations in the surgical treatment of single-segment lumbar stenosis. Material and Methods. A retrospective comparative analysis of treatment of 88 patients aged 29 to 72 years with single-level lumbar stenosis was carried out. Posterior instrumental fixation (OLIF-PF) was performed in 60 cases, and anterolateral (OLIF-AF) – in 28. Results. The compared groups did not statistically significantly differ from each other in terms of age, gender, body mass index, clinical picture and duration of symptoms before surgery, assessment of neurological status according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), preoperative diagnosis, localization of stenosis, pain assessment in the back and leg before surgery according to a digital rating scale, physical status (ASA), health assessment (SF-12, ODI), follow-up period, as well as smoking and the presence of comorbidities (p > 0.05). In the OLIF-AF group, compared to the OLIF-PF group, a statistically significant advantage was found in terms of blood loss, duration of surgery and anesthesia, the level of radiological exposure, duration of patient’s hospitalization and hospital stay in the postoperative period, as well as the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and intraoperative volume of infusions (p < 0.05). Despite earlier discharge and less use of local anesthesia (35.7 % vs 73.3 %; p = 0.001), patients in the OLIF-AF group had statistically significantly lower level of back pain on the day of discharge (3.0 vs 3.5; p = 0.034) and were less likely to need opioids (3.6 % vs 31.7 %; p = 0.003). With regard to complications and adverse events, there were no statistically significant differences during dynamic follow-up period from 3 to 50 months in both groups (17.9 % vs 28.3 %; p = 0.290), including depending on the timing of complications (early or late). In addition, no statistically significant differences were found for neurological, infectious, gastrointestinal, urological, or implant-related complications (p > 0.05). Conclusions. Indirect decompression of the spinal roots and interbody fusion through the lateral pre-psoas approach in combination with OLIF-AF is an effective and safe technique for the surgical treatment of single-segment lumbar stenosis. This method allows to reduce the invasiveness of surgery and severity of the pain syndrome and to create conditions for enhanced recovery after surgery. Further multicenter randomized trials are needed to comprehensively evaluate long-term outcomes.
经前外侧小入路腰椎融合术:前椎间(OLIF-AF)和经皮椎弓根(OLIF-PF)固定术治疗单节段狭窄的比较
目标。比较分析经腰肌前外侧入路(OLIF)椎体间融合术联合前外侧(OLIF- af)和后路经皮(OLIF- pf)螺钉固定治疗单节段腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效和安全性。材料和方法。回顾性比较分析88例29 ~ 72岁单节段腰椎管狭窄患者的治疗方法。后路固定术(OLIF-PF) 60例,前外侧固定术(OLIF-AF) 28例。结果。比较组在年龄、性别、体重指数、术前临床表现及症状持续时间、苏黎世跛行问卷(ZCQ)神经系统状态评估、术前诊断、狭窄定位、术前背部和腿部疼痛评估(数字评定量表)、身体状况(ASA)、健康评估(SF-12、ODI)、随访时间、以及吸烟和存在合并症(p >0.05)。在OLIF-AF组中,与OLIF-PF组相比,出血量、手术和麻醉时间、放射暴露水平、术后患者住院和住院时间、抗生素预防持续时间和术中输注量均有统计学意义上的优势(p <0.05)。尽管较早出院且较少使用局麻(35.7% vs 73.3%;p = 0.001), OLIF-AF组患者在出院当天的背痛水平有统计学意义显著降低(3.0 vs 3.5;P = 0.034),并且不太可能需要阿片类药物(3.6% vs 31.7%;P = 0.003)。在3 ~ 50个月的动态随访期间,两组的并发症和不良事件发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(17.9% vs 28.3%;P = 0.290),包括取决于并发症发生的时间(早期或晚期)。此外,在神经系统、感染性、胃肠道、泌尿系统或植入物相关并发症方面,没有发现统计学上的显著差异(p >0.05)。结论。经腰肌前外侧入路间接椎根减压和椎间融合术联合OLIF-AF是一种有效且安全的手术治疗单节段腰椎管狭窄的技术。这种方法可以减少手术的侵入性和疼痛综合征的严重程度,并为增强术后恢复创造条件。需要进一步的多中心随机试验来全面评估长期结果。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Hirurgia Pozvonochnika
Hirurgia Pozvonochnika Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信