• Clinical spine surgery · Oct 2019

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Microendoscopic Muscle-preserving Interlaminar Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With >5-Year Follow-up.

    • Ryota Kimura, Mitsunori Yoshimoto, Naohisa Miyakoshi, Michio Hongo, Yuji Kasukawa, Takashi Kobayashi, Kazuma Kikuchi, Koichiro Okuyama, Tadato Kido, Ryosuke Hirota, Shuto Hamada, Mitsuho Chiba, Eiji Abe, Toshihiko Yamashita, and Yoichi Shimada.
    • Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita.
    • Clin Spine Surg. 2019 Oct 1; 32 (8): E380-E385.

    Study DesignRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected observational multicenter data.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical results and rates of revision surgery after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and microendoscopic muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (ME-MILD) in patients with single-level, mild degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) and follow-up of at least 5 years.Summary Of Background DataSurgery for symptomatic DLS remains controversial. Evaluating long-term results may reveal problems such as adjacent segmental diseases of the PLIF and decreased quality of life because of slippage and restenosis of the ME-MILD.MethodsWe enrolled 116 patients who underwent PLIF (79 patients) or ME-MILD (37 patients). Operative times, blood losses, surgical complications, Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, the JOA Back Pain Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), visual analog scales (VAS), and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) were evaluated.ResultsPLIF was observed to require significantly longer operative times and entailed greater operative blood losses than did ME-MILD (151.1 vs. 119.9 min; 202.2 vs. 6.4 mL, respectively). Surgery-related complications were identified in 3 cases in the PLIF group and 2 cases in the ME-MILD group. Seventy-eight patients (50 and 28 patients in the PLIF and ME-MILD groups, respectively) were successfully followed-up for >5 years. The follow-up rate was 67.2%. No significant differences between the groups were found in terms of preoperative and postoperative JOA scores, postoperative JOABPEQ, VAS, or ZCQ. Significant improvements in JOA scores were observed in both groups. Significant improvements in the SF-36 were observed in all subscales except in role physical, general health, vitality, and mental health in the ME-MILD group. Revision surgical procedures were performed in 2 patients in the ME-MILD group and 4 patients in the PLIF group.ConclusionsPLIF and ME-MILD resulted in equivalent improvements in SF-36 and JOA scores. There were no differences in revision surgery rates among patients with single-level, mild DLS.Level Of EvidenceLevel III-a retrospective analysis.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.