Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Fusion: A Comparison of Blood Loss, Surgical Complications, and Hospital Course.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative blood loss is a frequent concern in spine surgery and often necessitates the use of allogeneic transfusion. Minimally invasive technique (MIS) is an option that minimizes surgical trauma and therefore intra-operative bleeding. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the blood loss, surgical complications, and duration of inpatient hospitalization in patients undergoing open posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF), open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with PLF, or MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). METHODS: Operative reports and perioperative data of patients undergoing single-level, primary open PLF (n=41), open PLIF/PLF (n=42), and MIS TLIF (n=71) were retrospectively evaluated. Patient demographics, operative blood loss, use of transfusion products, complications, and length of stay were tabulated. Patient data was controlled for age, BMI, and gender for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Patients undergoing open PLF and open PLIF/PLF respectively experienced a significantly higher blood loss (p<0.001), higher volume of blood transfusion (p<0.001), higher volume of cell saver transfusion (p<0.001), and more surgical complications (dural injury, wound infections, screw malposition) (p=0.02) than those undergoing MIS TLIF. There was no statistically significant difference in duration of hospital stay (p=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: MIS TLIF provides interbody fusion with less intraoperative blood loss and subsequently a lower transfusion rate compared to open techniques, but this did not influence length of hospital stay. MIS TLIF is at least as safe as open techniques with respect to dural tear, wound infection, and screw placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic.

Model-free parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI: sensitivity to EES volume fraction and bolus timing.

PURPOSE: To quantify the unknown relative sensitivities of semiquantitative measures from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI to variations in the volume fraction V(e) of the extravascular extracellular space (EES), and the duration of the contrast injection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tissue-uptake curves were simulated across various values of F, PS, V(e), and bolus timings, with and without additive noise and at different image reacquisition rates. From each, the peak of the first derivative (G(peak)), the total uptake after the rapid first phase (CE), and the IAUC were calculated and plotted against F for each experimental condition. Relationships between each measure and the corresponding quantitative measure K(trans) were also examined, particularly for linearity. RESULTS: The highest sensitivity to flow was achieved for shorter bolus timings for G(peak), CE, and IAUC. G(peak) and IAUC were most linearly related to K(trans). The sensitivity to V(e) was lowest for G(peak), followed by IAUC and CE. Long sampling intervals resulted in severe underestimation of G(peak), while IAUC was unaffected provided that the limits of integration were properly applied. G(peak) could not be properly calculated in the presence of noise without a prior smoothing of the acquired curves, while IAUC was again unaffected by noise. CONCLUSION: G(peak) and IAUC are both useful model-free analogs of blood flow (i.e., K(trans)) for pre- and posttreatment comparisons. G(peak) may be the better choice in cases where larger changes in V(e) are likely, but only if sufficient noise reduction and fast image sampling are applied. If V(e) is expected to remain stable, IAUC is superior to G(peak) by virtue of its stability in the face of noise and more reliable estimation over a wider range of sampling rates.