4.5 Article

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion A Review of Techniques and Outcomes

期刊

SPINE
卷 35, 期 26, 页码 S294-S301

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022ddc

关键词

MIS; TLIF; PLIF; morbidity; outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. Review of published literature. Objective. To review the available medical literature reporting results after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and evaluate functional and radiographic outcomes with those following open TLIF and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedures. Summary of Background Data. Minimally invasive spine techniques aim to reduce approach-related surgical morbidity without compromising operative and clinical outcomes. MIS TLIF is increasingly being used for the management of various lumbar degenerative diseases. Despite the limited number of well-designed clinical studies, the available published data suggest potential advantages over its open posterior-approach lumbar interbody fusion counterparts. Such benefits include less intraoperative blood loss, less need for blood transfusions, shorter hospital course, and less postoperative pain. Methods. Literature examining posterior-approach interbody fusion techniques (PLIF, TLIF, and MIS TLIF) was collected using the National Center for Biotechnology Information database and PubMed/MEDLINE, and summarized for discussion. Results. Literature reports of MIS TLIF generally show comparable or improved clinical outcomes when compared with those following open posterior interbody fusion techniques. Additionally, significantly less blood loss, hospital stay, and complications were generally reported, despite slightly longer duration of surgery, especially during early cases in a surgeon's experience. Conclusion. More studies designed to provide class I or II data will be needed in the future to further solidify the favorable results observed so far with the MIS TLIF procedure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据