English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: Degenerative disc disease is a common problem that could require surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes, complications and benefits associated with intersomatic fusions by the MI-TLIF, PLIF and PLF techniques. Methods: A total of 212 patients were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent the same preand postoperative clinical evaluations using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and SF-36. Follow-ups were performed for at least one year. Inpatient days, complications, blood loss and operative times were equally quantified. Results: Estimated blood loss for MI-TLIF was statistically lower compared to the amount of blood recovered by Cell Saver device on PLIF and PLF groups. Mean surgical time for MI-TLIF were not significantly different compared to PLIF and PLF groups. Inpatient days were significantly lower in the MI-TLIF group, with an average decrease of one day. Four complications were recorded in the PLIF group, 2 in the PLF group, and one in the MI-TLIF group. Analysis of the clinical parameters revealed post-operative improvements at all time points, with the most statistically significant differences occurring at the first six months. Better results were achieved with the MI-TLIF technique. Conclusions: Compared to more invasive techniques, MI-TLIF showed fewer complications, less blood loss and shorter hospitalization times. Longer operative times in this group can be explained by the greater technical complexity and incipient learning curves. Interbody fusion by PLIF, PLF and MI-TLIF provided good clinical outcomes, but faster recovery was obtained with less invasive techniques. Level of evidence: III; Type of study: Retrospective comparative case study.

POSTEROLATERAL, POSTERIOR AND MI-TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION: A STUDY OF 212 CASES