Comparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Abstract Background The benefits of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) as a minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis have been unclear. We sought to evaluate the invasiveness and tolerability of XLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS) compa...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2017-10-01
|
| Series: | BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-017-1775-y |
| _version_ | 1818951786058219520 |
|---|---|
| author | Tetsuro Ohba Shigeto Ebata Hirotaka Haro |
| author_facet | Tetsuro Ohba Shigeto Ebata Hirotaka Haro |
| author_sort | Tetsuro Ohba |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background The benefits of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) as a minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis have been unclear. We sought to evaluate the invasiveness and tolerability of XLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS) compared with traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods Fifty-six consecutive patients underwent open PLIF and 46 consecutive patients underwent single-staged treatment with XLIF with posterior PPS fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, and were followed up for a minimum of 1 year. We analyzed postoperative serum makers for muscle damage and inflammation, postoperative surgical pain, and performance status. A Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were obtained at the time of hospital admission and 1 year after surgery. Results Intraoperative blood loss (51 ± 41 ml in the XLIF/PPS group and 206 ± 191 ml in the PLIF group), postoperative WBC counts and serum CRP levels in the XLIF/PPS group were significantly lower than in the PLIF group. Postoperative serum CK levels were significantly lower in the XLIF/PPS group on postoperative days 4 and 7. Postoperative recovery of performance was significantly greater in the XLIF/PPS group than in the PLIF group from postoperative days 2 to 7. ODI and visual analog scale (VAS) score (lumbar) 1 year after surgery were significantly lower in the XLIF/PPS group compared with the PLIF group. Conclusions The XLIF/PPS procedure is advantageous to minimize blood loss and muscle damage, with consequent earlier recovery of daily activities and reduced incidence of low back pain after surgery than with the open PLIF procedure. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T09:40:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e8174f82d92542d5b3c22b88fc018e91 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2474 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T09:40:01Z |
| publishDate | 2017-10-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders |
| spelling | doaj.art-e8174f82d92542d5b3c22b88fc018e912022-12-21T19:44:55ZengBMCBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders1471-24742017-10-011811710.1186/s12891-017-1775-yComparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusionTetsuro Ohba0Shigeto Ebata1Hirotaka Haro2Department of Orthopaedics, University of YamanashiDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of YamanashiDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of YamanashiAbstract Background The benefits of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) as a minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis have been unclear. We sought to evaluate the invasiveness and tolerability of XLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS) compared with traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods Fifty-six consecutive patients underwent open PLIF and 46 consecutive patients underwent single-staged treatment with XLIF with posterior PPS fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, and were followed up for a minimum of 1 year. We analyzed postoperative serum makers for muscle damage and inflammation, postoperative surgical pain, and performance status. A Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were obtained at the time of hospital admission and 1 year after surgery. Results Intraoperative blood loss (51 ± 41 ml in the XLIF/PPS group and 206 ± 191 ml in the PLIF group), postoperative WBC counts and serum CRP levels in the XLIF/PPS group were significantly lower than in the PLIF group. Postoperative serum CK levels were significantly lower in the XLIF/PPS group on postoperative days 4 and 7. Postoperative recovery of performance was significantly greater in the XLIF/PPS group than in the PLIF group from postoperative days 2 to 7. ODI and visual analog scale (VAS) score (lumbar) 1 year after surgery were significantly lower in the XLIF/PPS group compared with the PLIF group. Conclusions The XLIF/PPS procedure is advantageous to minimize blood loss and muscle damage, with consequent earlier recovery of daily activities and reduced incidence of low back pain after surgery than with the open PLIF procedure.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-017-1775-yLumbar degenerative spondylolisthesisExtreme lateral interbody fusionPercutaneous pedicle screwsMinimally invasive surgeryMuscle damageLow back pain |
| spellingShingle | Tetsuro Ohba Shigeto Ebata Hirotaka Haro Comparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis Extreme lateral interbody fusion Percutaneous pedicle screws Minimally invasive surgery Muscle damage Low back pain |
| title | Comparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title_full | Comparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title_short | Comparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title_sort | comparison of serum markers for muscle damage surgical blood loss postoperative recovery and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| topic | Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis Extreme lateral interbody fusion Percutaneous pedicle screws Minimally invasive surgery Muscle damage Low back pain |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-017-1775-y |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tetsuroohba comparisonofserummarkersformuscledamagesurgicalbloodlosspostoperativerecoveryandsurgicalsitepainafterextremelateralinterbodyfusionwithpercutaneouspediclescrewsortraditionalopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion AT shigetoebata comparisonofserummarkersformuscledamagesurgicalbloodlosspostoperativerecoveryandsurgicalsitepainafterextremelateralinterbodyfusionwithpercutaneouspediclescrewsortraditionalopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion AT hirotakaharo comparisonofserummarkersformuscledamagesurgicalbloodlosspostoperativerecoveryandsurgicalsitepainafterextremelateralinterbodyfusionwithpercutaneouspediclescrewsortraditionalopenposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion |