• Shengxiang Ao, Wenjie Zheng, Junlong Wu, Yu Tang, Chao Zhang, Yue Zhou, and Changqing Li.
• Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Affiliated Xinqiao Hospital of Army Medical University, 183 Xinqiao Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400037, China.
• Int J Surg. 2020 Apr 1; 76: 136-143.

BackgroundPercutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PETLIF) has been used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, as a novel minimally invasive technique.ObjectivesTo compare the surgical trauma and the medium-short term postoperative outcomes of PETLIF and traditional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).MethodsFrom April to August of 2018, 75 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases received PETLIF (Group PE, 35 cases) or MIS-TLIF (Group MIS, 40 cases) were enrolled in the prospective cohort study. We recorded the serum creatine kinase (CK) and C-reactive protein (CRP), blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified Macnab criteria score, complications, and fusion rates of the 2 groups.ResultsThere were significant reductions in CRP (P = 0.002) on postoperative day (POD) 3, and CK (P = 0.011) on POD 1 for Group PE than Group MIS. The mean true total blood loss (P < 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative drains (P < 0.001), and hidden blood (P = 0.020) in the Group PE were significantly less compared with Group MIS. The VAS score for low-back pain, leg pain and ODI score improved significantly in both groups after surgery (P < 0.05). The VAS of low-back pain on POD 1 was significant less (P < 0.001) for Group PE. There was no statistical difference (P = 0.561) in CT fusion rates between Group PE (85%) and Group MIS (92%). No serious complication was observed in any patients.ConclusionThe study indicated that PETLIF had advantages of less surgical trauma, less postoperative low-back pain, less hidden blood loss, and faster recovery, compared with MIS-TLIF. There was no significant difference in medium-short term surgical outcomes between the 2 techniques. However, the indications of PETLIF is relatively limited, and the learning curve of PETLIF is deep, surgeons need to select indications strictly. Further study with big sample size and long-term follow-up is needed.Copyright © 2020 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

30 keywords...

hide…