Is Direct Decompression Necessary for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)? A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Direct and Indirect Decompression With LLIF in Selected Patients

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurospine Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.14245/ns.2346906.453
Worawat Limthongkul, Chayapong Thanapura, Khanathip Jitpakdee, Pakawas Praisarnti, Vit Kotheeranurak, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Weerasak Singhatanadgige
{"title":"Is Direct Decompression Necessary for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)? A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Direct and Indirect Decompression With LLIF in Selected Patients","authors":"Worawat Limthongkul, Chayapong Thanapura, Khanathip Jitpakdee, Pakawas Praisarnti, Vit Kotheeranurak, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Weerasak Singhatanadgige","doi":"10.14245/ns.2346906.453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) between direct and indirect decompression in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods Patients who underwent single-level LLIF were randomized into 2 groups: direct decompression (group D) and indirect decompression (group I). Clinical outcomes including the Oswestry Disability index and visual analogue scale of back and leg pain were collected. Radiographic outcomes including cross-sectional area (CSA) of thecal sac, disc height, foraminal height, foraminal area, fusion rate, segmental, and lumbar lordosis were measured. Results Twenty-eight patients who met the inclusion criteria were eligible for the analysis, with a distribution of 14 subjects in each group. The average age was 66.1 years. Postoperatively, significant improvements were observed in all clinical parameters. However, these improvements did not show significant difference between both groups at all follow-up periods. All radiographic outcomes were not different between both groups, except for the increase in CSA which was significantly greater in group D (77.73 ± 20.26 mm2 vs. 54.32 ± 35.70 mm2, p = 0.042). Group I demonstrated significantly lower blood loss (68.13 ± 32.06 mL vs. 210.00 ± 110.05 mL, p < 0.005), as well as shorter operative time (136.35 ± 28.07 minutes vs. 182.18 ± 42.67 minutes, p = 0.002). Overall complication rate was not different. Conclusion Indirect decompression through LLIF results in comparable clinical improvement to LLIF with additional direct decompression over 1-year follow-up period. These findings suggest that, for an appropriate candidate, direct decompression in LLIF might not be necessary since the ligamentotaxis effect achieved through indirect decompression appears sufficient to relieve symptoms while diminishing blood loss and operative time.","PeriodicalId":19269,"journal":{"name":"Neurospine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurospine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2346906.453","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) between direct and indirect decompression in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods Patients who underwent single-level LLIF were randomized into 2 groups: direct decompression (group D) and indirect decompression (group I). Clinical outcomes including the Oswestry Disability index and visual analogue scale of back and leg pain were collected. Radiographic outcomes including cross-sectional area (CSA) of thecal sac, disc height, foraminal height, foraminal area, fusion rate, segmental, and lumbar lordosis were measured. Results Twenty-eight patients who met the inclusion criteria were eligible for the analysis, with a distribution of 14 subjects in each group. The average age was 66.1 years. Postoperatively, significant improvements were observed in all clinical parameters. However, these improvements did not show significant difference between both groups at all follow-up periods. All radiographic outcomes were not different between both groups, except for the increase in CSA which was significantly greater in group D (77.73 ± 20.26 mm2 vs. 54.32 ± 35.70 mm2, p = 0.042). Group I demonstrated significantly lower blood loss (68.13 ± 32.06 mL vs. 210.00 ± 110.05 mL, p < 0.005), as well as shorter operative time (136.35 ± 28.07 minutes vs. 182.18 ± 42.67 minutes, p = 0.002). Overall complication rate was not different. Conclusion Indirect decompression through LLIF results in comparable clinical improvement to LLIF with additional direct decompression over 1-year follow-up period. These findings suggest that, for an appropriate candidate, direct decompression in LLIF might not be necessary since the ligamentotaxis effect achieved through indirect decompression appears sufficient to relieve symptoms while diminishing blood loss and operative time.
外侧腰椎椎间融合术(LLIF)是否需要直接减压?一项随机对照试验,比较直接减压和间接减压与 LLIF 在部分患者中的应用
目的 比较直接减压和间接减压治疗腰椎退行性疾病患者侧腰椎椎间融合术(LLIF)后的临床和影像学效果。方法 将接受单水平 LLIF 的患者随机分为两组:直接减压组(D 组)和间接减压组(I 组)。收集临床结果,包括 Oswestry 失能指数和腰腿痛视觉模拟量表。放射学结果包括椎间盘囊横截面积(CSA)、椎间盘高度、椎间孔高度、椎间孔面积、融合率、节段和腰椎前凸。结果 符合纳入标准的 28 名患者符合分析条件,每组 14 人。平均年龄为 66.1 岁。术后,所有临床参数均有明显改善。不过,在所有随访期间,两组患者的改善情况均无明显差异。两组的所有影像学结果均无差异,只有 D 组的 CSA 增加明显(77.73 ± 20.26 mm2 对 54.32 ± 35.70 mm2,P = 0.042)。I 组的失血量明显更少(68.13 ± 32.06 mL vs 210.00 ± 110.05 mL,p < 0.005),手术时间也更短(136.35 ± 28.07 分钟 vs 182.18 ± 42.67 分钟,p = 0.002)。总体并发症发生率没有差异。结论 LLIF间接减压术与LLIF直接减压术在1年随访期内的临床改善效果相当。这些研究结果表明,对于合适的患者,LLIF 可能不需要直接减压,因为通过间接减压达到的韧带松弛效果似乎足以缓解症状,同时减少失血量和手术时间。
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
Neurospine
Neurospine Multiple-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
18.80%
发文量
93
审稿时长
10 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