TLIF 术与 MIS-TLIF 术对腰椎疾病合并骨质疏松患者的疗效对比

逸阳 高(包头医学院（内蒙古包头市第四医院脊柱外科），中国)
革会 于(包头医学院（内蒙古包头市第四医院脊柱外科），中国)
学强 陶(包头医学院（内蒙古包头市第四医院脊柱外科），中国)
伟 李(包头医学院（内蒙古包头市第四医院脊柱外科），中国)
凯 张(包头医学院（内蒙古包头市第四医院脊柱外科），中国)

摘要

目的：对比经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术（transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion，TLIF）与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术（minimal-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion，MIS-TLIF）对腰椎疾病合并骨质疏松症患者的疗效。方法：收集2018—2022年初次进行单节段腰椎择期手术的患者85例，依照手术方式分为TLIF组与MIS-TLIF组。收集患者基本资料、临床疗效数据。两组数值变量采用两个独立样本的t检验、无序分类变量采用卡方检验、有序分类变量采用秩和检验进行比较。结果：TLIF组的平均住院时间、失血量高于MIS-TLIF组（P＜0.05）。TLIF组术后1、3、6个月腰部VA S高于MIS-TLIF组（P＜0.05），TLIF组术后1天腿部VA S高于MIS-TLIF组（P＜0.05），MIS-TLIF组术后2年腿部VA S高于TLIF组（P＜0.05）。两组患者术后1年、术后2年的ODI指数MIS-TLIF组更高（P＜0.05）。结论：MIS-TLIF手术相较于TLIF手术对腰椎疾病伴骨质疏松患者的短期疗效更好。但患者1~2年的随访中，TLIF手术组的疗效表现更好。

关键词

经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术；微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术；骨质疏松；微创

参考

MOBBS R J, PHAN K, MALHAM G, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF J. J Spine Surg, 2015, 1(1): 2-18.2. RATHBONE J, RACKHAM M, NIELSEN D, et al. A systematic 表 3e TLIF 组与 MIS-TLIF 组临床疗效数据比较组别术后1年植骨融合情况术后2年植骨融合情况TLIF秩平均值43.5442.63MIS-TLIF秩平均值42.5443.32Z值-0.209-0.189P值0.8340.850review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) J. Eur Spine J, 2023, 32(6): 1911-26.3. HARMS J, ROLINGER H. [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl)] J. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb, 1982, 120(3): 343-7.4. WONG A P, SMITH Z A, STADLER J A, 3RD, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort J. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2014, 25(2): 279-304.5. HEEMSKERK J L, OLUWADARA AKINDURO O, CLIFTON W, et al. Long-term clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis J. Spine J, 2021, 21(12): 2049-65.6. LENER S, WIPPLINGER C, HERNANDEZ R N, et al. Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide J. Global Spine J, 2020, 10(2 Suppl): 151s-67s.7. DORIA-MEDINA R, HUBBE U, SCHOLZ C, et al. Free-Hand MIS TLIF without 3D Navigation-How to Achieve Low Radiation Exposure for Both Surgeon and Patient J. J Clin Med, 2023, 12(15).8. HU W, YANG G, WANG H, et al. Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF? J. J Pers Med, 2022, 12(12).9. WU A M, HU Z C, LI X B, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single segmental lumbar spondylolisthesis: minimum two-year follow up J. Ann Transl Med, 2018, 6(6): 105.10. DEWALD C J, STANLEY T. Instrumentation-related complications of multilevel fusions for adult spinal deformity patients over age 65: surgical considerations and treatment options in patients with poor bone quality J. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2006, 31(19 Suppl): S144-51.11. SCHREIBER J J, HUGHES A P, TAHER F, et al. An association can be found between hounsfield units and success of lumbar spine fusion J. Hss j, 2014, 10(1): 25-9.12. LANE N E. Epidemiology, etiology, and diagnosis of osteoporosis J. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2006, 194(2 Suppl): S3-11.13. HAEFELI M, ELFERING A. Pain assessment J. Eur Spine J, 2006, 15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1): S17-24.14. HäGG O, FRITZELL P, NORDWALL A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain J. Eur Spine J, 2003, 12(1): 12-20.15. GALBUSERA F, VOLKHEIMER D, REITMAIER S, et al. Pedicle screw loosening: a clinically relevant complication? J. Eur Spine J, 2015, 24(5): 1005-16.16. SU Y H, WU P K, WU M H, et al. Comparison of the Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes Between Expandable Cage and Static Cage for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J. World Neurosurg, 2023, 179: 133-42.17. TAN G H, GOSS B G, THORPE P J, et al. CT-based classification of long spinal allograft fusion J. Eur Spine J, 2007, 16(11): 1875-81.18. SAVILLE P A, ANARI J B, SMITH H E, et al. Vertebral body fracture after TLIF: a new complication J. Eur Spine J, 2016, 25 Suppl 1: 230-8.19. BYVALTSEV V A, KALININ A A, GIERS M B, et al. Comparison of MRI Visualization Following Minimally Invasive and Open TLIF: A Retrospective Single-Center Study J. Diagnostics (Basel), 2021, 11(5).20. GE D H, STEKAS N D, VARLOTTA C G, et al. Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF J. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2019, 44(9): E555-e60.21. MURA P P, COSTAGLIOLI M, PIREDDA M, et al. TLIF for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective study of 100 patients J. Eur Spine J, 2011, 20 Suppl 1(Suppl 1): S57-60.22. DIBBLE C F, ZHANG J K, GREENBERG J K, et al. Comparison of local and regional radiographic outcomes in minimally invasive and open TLIF: a propensity score-matched cohort J. J Neurosurg Spine, 2022: 1-11.23. JACOB K C, PATEL M R, RIBOT M A, et al. Single-level TLIF Versus LLIF at L4-5: A Comparison of Patient-reported Outcomes and Recovery Ratios J. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2022, 30(4): e495-e505.24. LIGHTSEY H M T, PISANO A J, STRIANO B M, et al. ALIF Versus TLIF for L5-S1 Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: ALIF Demonstrates Superior Segmental and Regional Radiographic Outcomes and Clinical Improvements Across More Patient-reported Outcome Measures Domains J. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2022, 47(11): 808-16.25. LI G Q, TONG T, WANG L F. Comparative analysis of the effects of OLIF and TLIF on adjacent segments after treatment of L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis J. J Orthop Surg Res, 2022, 17(1): 203.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12345/yzlcyxzz.v8i2.24005