Dataset Information

Two window-minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery (new approach) has a better post operative outcome and less soft tissue damage.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:The purpose of this new approach is to develop a method that is less invasive as well as less traumatic and can provide a better exposure/view of the surgical field. Postoperatively, the patient has less pain, short hospital stay and less use of the postoperative pain control medications. As compared to other minimally invasive spine surgeries this approach results in less soft tissue damage, minimal muscle destruction, less retraction and better surgical outcome. Methods:In this article authors focus on the new approach that has cost effective benefits as well as short recovery time postoperatively. Results:Approach is applicable for severe spinal stenosis as compared to other Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (MISS) techniques that are only applicable for the mild to moderate stenosis or degenerative processes. This plane is avascular plane so no or less bleeding is anticipated from this procedure. Conclusion:The technique facilitates bilateral canal enlargement through unilateral approach and provides accessibility to the contralateral foramen for decompression with perfect exposure and allows instrumentation through the lateral window with no muscle destruction.

SUBMITTER: Moammer G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7243001 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Two window-minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery (new approach) has a better post operative outcome and less soft tissue damage.

Moammer Gemah G Rehman Yasir Y Abolfotouh Sameh S

Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) 20200512

<h4>Introduction</h4>The purpose of this new approach is to develop a method that is less invasive as well as less traumatic and can provide a better exposure/view of the surgical field. Postoperatively, the patient has less pain, short hospital stay and less use of the postoperative pain control medications. As compared to other minimally invasive spine surgeries this approach results in less soft tissue damage, minimal muscle destruction, less retraction and better surgical outcome.<h4>Methods ...[more]

PMID: 32461805

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the treatment of choice for lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. The procedure can be performed through a traditional open approach (O-TLIF) or through minimally invasive techniques (MI-TLIF). Spinal surgeries in obese patients can pose risks, including increased rates of infection and thromboembolic events.Questions/purposesWe sought to systematically review the literature on the differences between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF in the obese patient in terms of complication rate, functional outcomes, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.MethodsWe used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to systematically search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published through February 2019 and identified those comparing the outcomes of O-TLIF and MI-TLIF in obese patients. The primary outcome was complication rate (total, infections, dural tears); secondary outcomes were blood loss, length of hospital stay, and functional scores. Two authors independently reviewed the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.ResultsIn the sample of 430 patients, the average age was 53.5 years, there were 153 men and 203 women, and the average body mass index was 33.6. Complications were significantly higher in O-TLIF than in MI-TLIF (OR = 0.420 [95% CI: 0.199, 0.887]; I 2 = 45.20%). No difference was detected between the two groups for visual analog scale back pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores between the pre-operative and last follow-up visits (SMD = -0.034 [95% CI -0.695, 0.627]; I 2 = 62.14% and SMD = 0.617 [95% CI: -1.082, 2.316]; I 2 = 25%, respectively). Blood loss was significantly lower in MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF (SMD = -426.736 [95% CI: -490.720, -362.752]; I 2 = 70.53%), as was the duration of hospital stay (SMD = -1.079 [95% CI: -1.591, -0.208]; I 2 = 84.3%).ConclusionMI-TLIF has equivalent efficacy to O-TLIF in obese patients at long-term follow-up. In addition, complication rate, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were lower in MI-TLIF than in O-TLIF.

Project description:ObjectiveTo test the equivalence for clinical effectiveness between microdecompression and laminectomy in patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis.DesignMulticentre observational study.SettingProspective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.Participants885 patients with central stenosis of the lumbar spine who underwent surgery at 34 Norwegian orthopaedic or neurosurgical departments. Patients were treated from October 2006 to December 2011.InterventionsLaminectomy and microdecompression.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was change in Oswestry disability index score one year after surgery. Secondary endpoints were quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D), perioperative complications, and duration of surgical procedures and hospital stays. A blinded biostatistician performed predefined statistical analyses in unmatched and propensity matched cohorts.ResultsThe study was powered to detect a difference between the groups of eight points on the Oswestry disability index at one year. 721 patients (81%) completed the one year follow-up. Equivalence between microdecompression and laminectomy was shown for the Oswestry disability index (difference 1.3 points, 95% confidence interval -1.36 to 3.92, P<0.001 for equivalence). Equivalence was confirmed in the propensity matched cohort and full information regression analyses. No difference was found between groups in quality of life (EQ-5D) one year after surgery. The number of patients with complications was higher in the laminectomy group (15.0% v 9.8%, P=0.018), but after propensity matching for complications the groups did not differ (P=0.23). The duration of surgery for single level decompression was shorter in the microdecompression group (difference 11.2 minutes, 95% confidence interval 4.9 to 17.5, P<0.001), but after propensity matching the groups did not differ (P=0.15). Patients in the microdecompression group had shorter hospital stays, both for single level decompression (difference 1.5 days, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.6, P<0.001) and two level decompression (0.8 days, 1.0 to 2.2, P=0.003).ConclusionAt one year the effectiveness of microdecompression is equivalent to laminectomy in the surgical treatment of central stenosis of the lumbar spine. Favourable outcomes were observed at one year in both treatment groups.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02006901.

Dataset Information

Two window-minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery (new approach) has a better post operative outcome and less soft tissue damage.

Publications

Two window-minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery (new approach) has a better post operative outcome and less soft tissue damage.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets