Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Surgical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Surgical Microscope vs Surgical Loupes: A Comparative Study.
Singhatanadgige, Weerasak; Chamadol, Hathaiphoom; Tanasansomboon, Teerachat; Kang, Daniel G; Yingsakmongkol, Wicharn; Limthongkul, Worawat.
Afiliação
  • Singhatanadgige W; Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Chamadol H; Center of Excellence in Biomechanics and Innovative Spine Surgery, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Tanasansomboon T; Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Kang DG; Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Yingsakmongkol W; Center of Excellence in Biomechanics and Innovative Spine Surgery, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Limthongkul W; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Madigan Army Medical Center, Washington, USA.
Int J Spine Surg ; 2022 Jul 14.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35835571
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an effective procedure for lumbar spine diseases. The procedure can be done using a surgical microscope (SM) or surgical loupes (SL) magnification. However, there are no studies that compared outcomes between using these 2 magnifying devices in the MIS-TLIF procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes, perioperative complications, and radiographic parameters of MIS-TLIF using SM compared with SL magnification.

METHODS:

We included all patients undergoing 1-level MIS-TLIF between January 2017 and December 2019. Type of magnification (SM vs SL), operative time, blood loss, perioperative complications, cross-sectional area of the spinal canal, and fusion rates were analyzed. Clinical outcomes measurement using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were compared between groups.

RESULTS:

A total of 100 patients had underwent MIS-TLIF (SM group 62; SL group 38). Operative time (SM 182.7 ± 41.5 vs SL 165.6 ± 32.6 minutes, P = 0.043) was significantly shorter in the SL group, with a mean difference of 17.2 minutes and a 10.4% increase in operative time between SL and SM. Blood loss (SM 187.4 ± 176.4 vs SL 215.6 ± 99.4 mL, P = 0.36) was not different between groups, with a mean difference of 28.2 mL. Both the SM group and SL group demonstrated no significant differences in improvement from baseline in VAS back, VAS legs, ODI score, and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal. There was also no significant difference in complication rates and fusion rates between groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our study found no difference between intraoperative use of SL compared with SM in clinical outcomes through the 12-month follow-up timepoint. However, the use of SM resulted in an increased average operative time of 17 minutes compared with the SL group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Intraoperative use of SM and SL magnification in MIS-TLIF provides similar outcomes except prolonged operative time in the SM group.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article