Dataset Information

Clinical comparison of three-dimensional exoscope vs. operative microscope in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective case-control study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Here, we sought to determine the safety and feasibility of three-dimensional exoscope (3D EX). We compared data on surgery, complications, postoperative drainage, hematology, and clinical outcomes in the group that underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an operative microscope (OM) relative to those treated using 3D EX.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed records on 74 patients who underwent one- or two-level TLIF from August 2019 to October 2020. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare pre- and post-operative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and oswestry disability index (ODI). We used analysis of covariance to compare pre- and post-operative erythrocyte count (RBC), hemoglobin (Hb), and hematocrit (Hct). Independent sample t-tests was used to compare postoperative drainage volume, total blood loss (TBL), visible blood loss (VBL) and hidden blood loss (HBL).

Results

There were no significant differences in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups at all time points (all p > 0.05). RBC and HBL did not differ significantly between the two groups (all p > 0.05). There were significant differences in postoperative drainage volume,TBL, Hb, and Hct values when using 3D EX relative to OM in two-level TLIF (all p < 0.05), but not for one-level TLIF (all p > 0.05). The two groups differed significantly with regards to VBL when used for one- or two-level TLIF (all p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our data show that 3D EX is a suitable alternative to OM in TLIF. Relative to OM, 3D EX has important strengths in reducing perioperative bleeding in two-level TLIF.

SUBMITTER: Peng YJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9891249 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical comparison of three-dimensional exoscope vs. operative microscope in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective case-control study.

Peng Yu-Jian YJ Zhao Tian-Bu TB Dai Jun J Wang Qian-Liang QL Zhang Qian-Zhong-Yi QZ Cao Jun-Yin JY Liu Xiao-Feng XF

Frontiers in surgery 20220729

<h4>Purpose</h4>Here, we sought to determine the safety and feasibility of three-dimensional exoscope (3D EX). We compared data on surgery, complications, postoperative drainage, hematology, and clinical outcomes in the group that underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an operative microscope (OM) relative to those treated using 3D EX.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively reviewed records on 74 patients who underwent one- or two-level TLIF from August 2019 to October 2020. Re ...[more]

PMID: 36743891

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (modified MIS-TLIF) versus conventional TLIF in the lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.Materials and methodsForty patients with 1-level lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. Perioperative indexes including operation time, intraoperative bleeding, bed rest time, time of hospitalisation stay and the accuracy rate of screw placement were analysed. Preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed.ResultsThe operation time in the modified MIS-TLIF group was longer than the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss in the modified MIS-TLIF group was less than the comparative group (p < 0.05). The average bed rest time and hospitalisation stay in the modified MIS-TLIF group was shorter than conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). The screw placement in the modified MIS-TLIF group was more precisely than that in the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the improvement of VAS and ODI in the modified MIS-TLIF group were lower than that in the conventional TLIF group 1 and 6 months after operation (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the VAS and ODI score between the two group at the last follow-up (p > 0.05).ConclusionNavigation and microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree I or II) with potential advantages including less injury, less blood loss, higher screw accuracy and faster recovery after operation.The translational potential of this articleCompared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has a huge advantage in surgery treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Hence, this article provided a better surgery method to deal with lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, and robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion will be adopted in the future.

Project description:BackgroundThe previous studies agree that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has better function outcomes, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, when compared to open-TLIF. However, there are no significance differences on operative time, complication, and reoperation rate between the two procedures. This could be from less relative literatures and lower grade evidence. The further meta-analysis is needed with more and higher grade evidences to compare the above two TLIF procedures.MethodsProspective and retrospective studies that compared open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP database (the literature search comprised Medical Subject Heading terms and key words or Emtree term). The retrieval time ranged from the date when the database was founded to January 2015. Pooled risk ratios (RR s) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the clinical outcomes and perioperative data.ResultsTwenty-four studies (n = 1967 patients) were included in this review (n = 951, open-TLIF, n = 1016, MIS-TLIF). MIS-TLIF was associated with a significant decrease in the visual analog score (VAS)-back pain score (WMD = -0.44; P = 0.001), Oswestry Disabilities Index (WMD = -1.57; P = 0.005), early ambulation (WMD = -1.77; P = 0.0001), less blood loss (WMD = -265.59; P < 0.00001), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.89; P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the fusion rate (RR = 0.99; P = 0.34), VAS-leg pain (WMD = -0.10; P = 0.26), complication rate (RR = 0.84; P = 0.35), operation time (WMD = -5.23; P = 0.82), or reoperation rate (RR = 0.73; P = 0.32).ConclusionsMIS-TLIF resulted in a similar fusion rate with better functional outcome, less blood loss, shorter ambulation, and hospital stay; furthermore, it did not increase the complication or reoperation rate based on the existing evidence.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims to perform a meta-analysis that integrates multiple literature sources to evaluate the clinical efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treating lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).MethodsA systematic search was conducted across various databases, including CNKI, VIP, WANFANG DATA, SinoMed, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, for clinical comparative studies on OLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating LDD, covering the time frame from the inception of the databases to September 2024. Following PRISMA guidelines, studies were screened, assessed, and data were extracted rigorously. Indicators extracted included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), disc height (DH), segmental lordotic angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), postoperative JOA scores, patient satisfaction, complication rates, and fusion rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software.ResultsA total of 24 studies were included, comprising 11 randomized controlled trials and 13 retrospective cohort studies. The total population consisted of 1785 patients, with 898 in the OLIF group and 887 in the MIS-TLIF group. The meta-analysis indicated that, compared to the MIS-TLIF group, the OLIF group exhibited significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, improved postoperative DH, shorter operative time, reduced postoperative VAS scores, lower postoperative ODI scores, and improved postoperative SLA and LLA. No significant differences were observed between the groups in postoperative JOA scores, fusion rates, complication rates, or patient satisfaction. The OLIF group exhibited advantages such as lower blood loss, shorter hospital stays, higher postoperative fusion rates, and improved recovery of disc and foraminal heights.ConclusionCompared to MIS-TLIF, OLIF is associated with a shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss, potentially leading to better relief of leg pain, restoration of DH, and prevention of subsidence. These findings offer valuable insights for clinical practice.

Dataset Information

Clinical comparison of three-dimensional exoscope vs. operative microscope in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective case-control study.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Clinical comparison of three-dimensional exoscope vs. operative microscope in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective case-control study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets