Comparison of Preliminary clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases in a tertiary hospital: Is percutaneous endoscopic procedure superior to MIS-TLIF? A prospective cohort study

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PETLIF) has been used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, as a novel minimally invasive technique. OBJECTIVES: To compare the surgical trauma and the medium-short term postoperative outcomes of PETLIF and traditional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). METHODS: From April to August of 2018, 75 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases received PETLIF (Group PE, 35 cases) or MIS-TLIF (Group MIS, 40 cases) were enrolled in the prospective cohort study. We recorded the serum creatine kinase (CK) and C-reactive protein (CRP), blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified Macnab criteria score, complications, and fusion rates of the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were significant reductions in CRP (P = 0.002) on postoperative day (POD) 3, and CK (P = 0.011) on POD 1 for Group PE than Group MIS. The mean true total blood loss (P < 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative drains (P < 0.001), and hidden blood (P = 0.020) in the Group PE were significantly less compared with Group MIS. The VAS score for low-back pain, leg pain and ODI score improved significantly in both groups after surgery (P < 0.05). The VAS of low-back pain on POD 1 was significant less (P < 0.001) for Group PE. There was no statistical difference (P = 0.561) in CT fusion rates between Group PE (85%) and Group MIS (92%). No serious complication was observed in any patients. CONCLUSION: The study indicated that PETLIF had advantages of less surgical trauma, less postoperative low-back pain, less hidden blood loss, and faster recovery, compared with MIS-TLIF. There was no significant difference in medium-short term surgical outcomes between the 2 techniques. However, the indications of PETLIF is relatively limited, and the learning curve of PETLIF is deep, surgeons need to select indications strictly. Further study with big sample size and long-term follow-up is needed.