Perioperative efficacy of extreme lateral interbody fusion versus traditional open posterior interbody fusion for disc herniation
TIAN Ai-xian,MA Jian-xiong,MA Xin-long
Institute of Orthopedics, Tianjin Hospital Tianjin Hospital of Tianjin University, Tianjin 300020, China
Abstract:
Objective To compare the perioperative outcomes of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) and open posterior interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Methods A total of 100 patients who underwent spinal surgery in our hospital from March 2020 to December 2021 were collected, including 50 patients treated with XLIF (XLIF group) and 50 patients treated with PLIF (PLIF group). The patients were followed up for at least 90 days. The VAS score, dosage of celecoxib, serum creatine kinase (CK) activity, plasma white blood cell (WBC) count and C-reactive protein (CRP) level were measured and compared between the two groups. Results There was no statistically significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups at 1, 4, 7 days after operation, at discharge and 90 days after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in celecoxib consumption between PLIF group and XLIF group on the 1st, 4th and 7th day after operation between the XLIF group and the PLIF group(P>0.05). On the fourth postoperative day, there was no significant difference in VAS score at 7 days, at discharge and 90 days after operation. There was no significant difference in celecoxib consumption between PLIF group and XLIF group on the 1st, 4th and 7th day after operation (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference in serum CK activity between the XLIF group and the PLIF group before operation (P=0.646). The serum CK activity in the XLIF group was significantly lower than that in the PLIF group on the 1st, 4th and 7th day after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups on the 90th day after operation (P=0.244). There was no significant difference in serum WBC count and C-reactive protein level between XLIF group and PLIF group before operation (P>0.05). On the 1st, 4th and 7th day after operation, the serum WBC count and C-reactive protein level in XLIF group were lower than those in PLIF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in serum white blood cell count and C-reactive protein level between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions Compared with PLIF, XLIF is beneficial to reduce muscle damage, which leads to earlier return to daily activities and reduce the recurrence rate of low back pain after operation.
