Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. METHODS: Chinese and English databases were retrieved for the period from database creation to December 31, 2022. Case-control studies on unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion were collected. The observation indexes consisted of operation times, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, postoperative MacNab excellent and good rate, imaging fusion rate at the last follow-up, and complications. The NO rating table was employed to assess the quality of the included literature, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Revman5.4.1 and Stata17. RESULTS: Ten studies with 738 surgical patients were considered, including 347 patients in the ULIF group and 391 in the MIS-TLIF group. This Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in mean operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and early postoperative (1-2W) visual analogue scale/score (VAS) scores for back pain. No significant differences were observed in the final follow-up postoperative VAS scores for back pain, postoperative leg VAS score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, excellent and good rate of postoperative modified MacNab, imaging fusion rate, and complications. CONCLUSION: Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the ULIF group had longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume, lower lumbar VAS score in the early postoperative period, and shorter hospital stay. ULIF is less invasive than traditional MIS-TLIF, making it a trustworthy surgical option for lumbar degenerative diseases with comparable fusion efficiency, superior MacNab rate, and complication rate.

Early effect of standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with lateral screw fixation of the vertebral body on single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: For the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) has clinical advantages. Whether internal fixation needs to be combined for treatment has been the subject of debate. OBJECTIVE: To compare the early clinical effects of standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion (S-OLIF) versus OLIF combined with lateral screw fixation of the vertebral body (F-OLIF) on single-level lumbar DDD. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on the data of 34 patients for whom the OLIF technique was applied to treat single-level lumbar DDD from August 2018 to May 2021. Patients were divided into the S-OLIF (n= 18) and F-OLIF groups (n= 16). Intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and length of hospital stay were recorded. The pain visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) before and after the operation were evaluated. The disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), fused segment lordosis (FSL), lumbar lordosis (LL), cage subsidence, and fusion by CT examination were measured before and after the operation. RESULTS: The S-OLIF group experienced a shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss than the F-OLIF group, and the differences were statistically significant (p< 0.05), but the difference in the length of hospital stay was not statistically significant. The postoperative VAS score and ODI of the two groups were significantly lower than those before the operation, but the postoperative differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. Differences were not statistically significant in postoperative FH, DH, FSL and LL of the two groups. Both groups were followed up for no less than 12 months. In the two groups, fusion was achieved at the last follow-up visit. CONCLUSION: According to short-term follow-up results, both S-OLIF and F-OLIF can achieve reliable and stable fusion and good clinical effect in the treatment of single-level lumbar DDD.

The effect of preperitoneal pelvic packing for hemodynamically unstable patients with pelvic fractures.

PURPOSE: Hemodynamically unstable patients with pelvic fractures still represent a challenge to trauma surgeons and have a very high mortality. This study was designed to explore the effect of the interventions of direct preperitoneal pelvic packing for the hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 67 cases of severe pelvic fractures with unstable hemodynamics from October 2011 to December 2019. All patients presented in our emergency center and received preperitoneal pelvic packing were included in this study. The indication was persistent systolic blood pressure ≤90 mmHg during initial resuscitation and after transfusion of two units of red blood cells. Patients with hemodynamic stability who need no preperitoneal pelvic packing to control bleeding were excluded. Their demographic characteristics, clinical features, laboratory results, therapeutic interventions, adverse events, and prognostic outcomes were collected from digital information system of electronic medical records. Statistics were described as mean ± standard deviation or medium and analyzed using pair sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: The patients' average age was 41.6 years, ranging from 10 to 88 years. Among them, 45 cases were male (67.2%) and 22 cases were female (32.8%). Significant difference was found regarding the systolic blood pressure (mmHg) in the emergency department (78.4 ± 13.9) and after preperitoneal pelvic packing in the surgery intensive care unit (100.1 ± 17.6) (p < 0.05). Simultaneously, the arterial base deficit (mmol/L) were significantly lower in the surgery intensive care unit (median -6, interquartile range -8 to -2) than in the emergency department (median -10, interquartile range -14 to -8) (p < 0.05). After preperitoneal pelvic packing, 15 patients (22.4%) underwent pelvic angiography for persistent hypotension or suspected ongoing haemorrhage. The overall mortality rate was 29.5% (20 of 67). CONCLUSIONS: Preperitoneal pelvic packing, as a useful surgical technique, is less invasive and can be very efficient in early intra-pelvic bleed control.