Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparing the Incidence of Index Level Fusion Following Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy.
McAnany, Steven J; Overley, Samuel C; Anwar, Muhammad A; Cutler, Holt S; Guzman, Javier Z; Kim, Jun S; Merrill, Robert K; Cho, Samuel K; Hecht, Andrew C; Qureshi, Sheeraz A.
Afiliação
  • McAnany SJ; Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA.
  • Overley SC; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  • Anwar MA; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  • Cutler HS; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  • Guzman JZ; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  • Kim JS; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  • Merrill RK; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  • Cho SK; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  • Hecht AC; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  • Qureshi SA; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Global Spine J ; 8(1): 11-16, 2018 Feb.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29456910
ABSTRACT
STUDY

DESIGN:

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the incidence of index level fusion following open or minimally invasive lumbar microdiscectomy.

METHODS:

We conducted a retrospective review of 174 patients with a symptomatic single-level lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus who underwent microdiscectomy via a mini-open approach (MIS; 39) or through a minimally invasive dilator tube (135). Outcomes of interest included revision microdiscectomy and the ultimate need for index level fusion. Continuous variables were analyzed with independent sample t test, and χ2 analysis was used for categorical data. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for patients that required index level fusion after lumbar microdiscectomy.

RESULTS:

There was no difference in patient demographics in the open and MIS groups aside from length of follow-up (60.4 vs 40.03 months, P < .0001) and body mass index (24.72 vs 27.21, P = .03). The rate of revision microdiscectomy was not statistically significant between open and MIS approaches (10.3% vs 10.4%, P = .90). The rate of patients who ultimately required index level fusion approached significance, but was not statistically different between open and MIS approaches (10.3% vs 4.4%, P = .17). Multivariate regression analysis indicated that the need for eventual index level fusion after lumbar microdiscectomy was statistically predicted in smokers and those patients who underwent revision microdiscectomy (P < .05) in both open and MIS groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results suggest a low likelihood of patients ultimately requiring fusion following microdiscectomy with predictors including smoking status and a history of revision microdiscectomy.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article