Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective analysis

View through CrossRef
Abstract Objective: This study retrospectively compared the early clinical and imaging outcomes of the single-level Meyerding Grade Ⅰ degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) using an expandable tubular retractor system under a surgical loupe. Methods: This was a retrospective study. This study included fifty-five patients (twenty-eight patients underwent ULIF and twenty-seven patients who underwent MI-TLIF at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University from June 2020 to July 2021. Demographic characteristic, surgical parameters, laboratory results, and clinical and imaging outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups. Results: The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the ULIF group (P<0.001). However, the mean operative time was significantly longer than in the ULIF group than in the MI-TLIF group (P<0.05). The mean CK and CRP levels on the first postoperative day were significantly lower in the ULIF group (P<0.001). All clinical scores improved significantly after the operation in both groups. The VAS back score for pain at two weeks and 1 month postoperatively was significantly lower in the ULIF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the change in the dural sac cross-sectional area preoperatively or at the final postoperative follow-up. The fusion rate was significantly greater in ULIF at 6 months after the operation (P<0.05). Conclusion: Compared to MI-TLIF, the ULIF technique has the advantages of less hemorrhage, less inflammation, and earlier fusion. However, this approach has a limited operation time. However, further clinical outcomes need to be followed up in the longer term.
Title: Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective analysis
Description:
Abstract Objective: This study retrospectively compared the early clinical and imaging outcomes of the single-level Meyerding Grade Ⅰ degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) using an expandable tubular retractor system under a surgical loupe.
Methods: This was a retrospective study.
This study included fifty-five patients (twenty-eight patients underwent ULIF and twenty-seven patients who underwent MI-TLIF at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University from June 2020 to July 2021.
Demographic characteristic, surgical parameters, laboratory results, and clinical and imaging outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups.
Results: The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the ULIF group (P<0.
001).
However, the mean operative time was significantly longer than in the ULIF group than in the MI-TLIF group (P<0.
05).
The mean CK and CRP levels on the first postoperative day were significantly lower in the ULIF group (P<0.
001).
All clinical scores improved significantly after the operation in both groups.
The VAS back score for pain at two weeks and 1 month postoperatively was significantly lower in the ULIF group (P<0.
05).
There was no significant difference between the two groups in the change in the dural sac cross-sectional area preoperatively or at the final postoperative follow-up.
The fusion rate was significantly greater in ULIF at 6 months after the operation (P<0.
05).
Conclusion: Compared to MI-TLIF, the ULIF technique has the advantages of less hemorrhage, less inflammation, and earlier fusion.
However, this approach has a limited operation time.
However, further clinical outcomes need to be followed up in the longer term.

Related Results

Low-grade spondylolisthesis: is transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion superior to posterolateral fusion
Low-grade spondylolisthesis: is transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion superior to posterolateral fusion
<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Spondylolisthesis is anterior translation of the cephalad vertebra relative to the adjacent caudal segment. Both ...
Does Minimally Invasive TLIF Reduce Adjacent Segment Disease and Reoperation Rates Compared With Open TLIF? A Meta-analysis
Does Minimally Invasive TLIF Reduce Adjacent Segment Disease and Reoperation Rates Compared With Open TLIF? A Meta-analysis
Objective: To determine whether minimally invasive-TLIF(MI-TLIF) reduces the rates of adjacent segment disease (ASD) and reoperation compared with open TLIF/PLI...
Transforaminal Lumber Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Clinical and Radiological Outcome
Transforaminal Lumber Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Clinical and Radiological Outcome
Objective To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of TLIF in the treatment of Spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease and recurrent herniation of...
Clinical Effectiveness and Biochemical Impacts of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-Analysis
Clinical Effectiveness and Biochemical Impacts of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-Analysis
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the clinical effectiveness, safety, and biochemical impacts of two spinal surgery techniques: open transforaminal lumbar i...

Back to Top