Day Case Lumbar Fusion Surgery
The article is a retrospective cohort study that compares the early clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). The study included 61 patients who underwent fusion surgery through ULIF or MIS-TLIF in 2021. The results showed that ULIF had a significantly lower Visual Analog Scale score for back pain in the early postoperative period compared to MIS-TLIF. Other clinical scores, C-reactive protein levels, and fusion rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, ULIF had longer operative time and higher hidden blood loss (HBL). Despite these drawbacks, the study suggests that ULIF may be a viable alternative to MIS-TLIF as technology advances
Summarised by Mr Mo Akmal – Lead Spinal Surgeon
The London Spine Unit : best rated spine hospital on Harley Street UK
Published article
CONCLUSIONS: ULIF is a new option for lumbar fusion. Despite the drawbacks of longer operation time and higher HBL, ULIF may be a viable alternative to MIS-TLIF as technology advances.
Lumbar Fusion Surgery Expert. Best Spinal Surgeon UK
Clin Spine Surg. 2023 Jun 28. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001470. Online ahead of print.ABSTRACTSTUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study.OBJECTIVE: To compare the early clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Along with the continuous development of endoscopic technology,
Clin Spine Surg. 2023 Jun 28. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001470. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the early clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Along with the continuous development of endoscopic technology, the early safety and effectiveness of ULIF technology are still unknown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 61 patients who underwent fusion surgery through ULIF or MIS-TLIF in 2021. Twenty-nine patients underwent ULIF (group A), and 32 underwent MIS-TLIF (group B). Fusion rate, bone graft volume, hidden blood loss (HBL), C-reactive protein level, operative time, Oswestry Disability Index , Visual Analog Scale score, and MacNab criteria were assessed in both groups.
RESULTS: The Visual Analog Scale score for back pain in the early postoperative period was significantly lower in group A than in group B (P<0.05). All other clinical scores showed improvement, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative C-reactive protein levels and fusion rates between the 2 groups (P>0.05). However, HBL was higher and operative time was longer in group A than in group B (P<0.05). Most importantly, there were no statistically significant differences between groups A and B in fusion rate, length of stay and bone graft volume (P>0.05). No serious surgical complications occurred in our study.
CONCLUSIONS: ULIF is a new option for lumbar fusion. Despite the drawbacks of longer operation time and higher HBL, ULIF may be a viable alternative to MIS-TLIF as technology advances.
PMID:37448192 | DOI:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001470
The London Spine Unit : best rated spine hospital on Harley Street UK
Read the original publication:
“Early Efficacy and Safety of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Minimal Invasive in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases”
