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

Amar A. Patel, Matthew Zfass-Mendez, Nathan H Lebwohl, Michael Y. Wang, Barth A Green, Allan D Levi, Steven Vanni, Seth K. Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)130-134
Number of pages5
JournalThe Iowa orthopaedic journal
Volume35
StatePublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Surgical Blood Loss
Length of Stay
Wound Infection
Wounds and Injuries
Tears
Cell Size
Blood Transfusion
Inpatients
Hospitalization
Spine
Demography
Hemorrhage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Fusion : A Comparison of Blood Loss, Surgical Complications, and Hospital Course. / Patel, Amar A.; Zfass-Mendez, Matthew; Lebwohl, Nathan H; Wang, Michael Y.; Green, Barth A; Levi, Allan D; Vanni, Steven; Williams, Seth K.

In: The Iowa orthopaedic journal, Vol. 35, 2015, p. 130-134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{63214f24b17a4cbcaf2d58734d4dd97d,
title = "Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Fusion: A Comparison of Blood Loss, Surgical Complications, and Hospital Course",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Patel, {Amar A.} and Matthew Zfass-Mendez and Lebwohl, {Nathan H} and Wang, {Michael Y.} and Green, {Barth A} and Levi, {Allan D} and Steven Vanni and Williams, {Seth K.}",
year = "2015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "130--134",
journal = "The Iowa orthopaedic journal",
issn = "1541-5457",
publisher = "University of Iowa",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Fusion

T2 - A Comparison of Blood Loss, Surgical Complications, and Hospital Course

AU - Patel, Amar A.

AU - Zfass-Mendez, Matthew

AU - Lebwohl, Nathan H

AU - Wang, Michael Y.

AU - Green, Barth A

AU - Levi, Allan D

AU - Vanni, Steven

AU - Williams, Seth K.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021211297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021211297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 26361455

AN - SCOPUS:85021211297

VL - 35

SP - 130

EP - 134

JO - The Iowa orthopaedic journal

JF - The Iowa orthopaedic journal

SN - 1541-5457

ER -