Retrospective study of minimally invasive surgery verses open laminectomy or laminectomy with diskectomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20212704Keywords:
Minimally invasive laminectomy/diskectomy, Open laminectomy/diskectomy, ComparisonAbstract
Background: Minimally invasive spine surgeries (MIS) are often considered superior to their open counterparts in view of smaller incisions, reduced blood loss, less post-operative pain and less hospital stay. In this study, we compared the clinical outcome of MIS and open procedure of lumbar laminectomy/discectomy. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcome between the MIS and open procedure of lumbar laminectomy/discectomy.
Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted at Government medical college, Kottayam, Kerala, India where we studied the patients who underwent MIS and open laminectomy/laminectomy with discectomy during the period January 2018 to January 2020.
Results: We studied a total of 200 patients, among which 60% were males with a mean age of 50.58 years and 40% were females with a mean age of 53.59 years, 45.5% had L5 S1 IVDP, 30% had L4/5 IVDP, and 24.5% had L4/5 lumbar canal stenosis, 75.5% underwent laminectomy with discectomy and the rest (24.5%) underwent laminectomy with foraminotomy, 60% underwent open surgery and 40% underwent MIS.
Conclusions: MIS was superior to its open analog in terms of intra operative blood loss as well as hospital stay. But open surgeries required less operation time, less C arm exposure, had better pain control and functional outcome and less recurrence in our study.
Metrics
References
Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O. Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(3):545-9.
Wu X, Zhuang S, Mao Z, Chen H. Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique and outcome in 873 consecutive cases. Spine. 2006;31(23):2689-94.
Lau D, Han SJ, Lee JG, Lu DC, Chou D. Minimally invasive compared to open microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(1):81-4.
Arts MP, Brand R, Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC, et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302(2):149-58.
Lee P, Liu JC, Fessler RG. Perioperative results following open and minimally invasive single-level lumbar discectomy. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(12):1667-70.
Clelland S, Goldstein JA. Minimally Invasive versus Open Spine Surgery: What Does the Best Evidence Tell Us?. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2017;8(2):194-8.
Evaniew N, Khan M, Drew B, Kwok D, Bhandari M, Ghert M. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ Open. 2014;2(4):295-305.
Foley KT, Smith MM. Microendoscopic discectomy. Tech Neurosurg. 1997;3:301-7.
Perez CMJ, Smith M, Foley K. In: Perez CMJ, Fessler RG, eds. Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy. Outpatient Spinal Surgery. St. Louis: Quality Medical; 2002: 171-183.
Brock M, Kunkel P, Papavero L. Lumbar microdiscectomy: subperiosteal versus transmuscular approach and influence on the early postoperative analgesic consumption. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(4):518-22.
Smith N, Masters J, Jensen C, Khan A, Sprowson A. Systematic review of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(11):2458-65.
Ranjan A, Lath R. Microendoscopic discectomy for prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc. Neurol India. 2006;54(2):190-4.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
