A comparison of perioperative charges and outcome between open and mini-open approaches for anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion

Smith, William D.; Christian, Ginger; Serrano, Sherrie; Malone, Kyle

doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2011.09.010

Cited by 66 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Guerin et al [3] performed an anatomical study on the safe working zones inside the psoas muscle and found that at L3-4 and L4-5 levels, the ''safest'' zone is always posterior to genitofemoral nerve. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion is another alternative to XLIF [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. However, there are several limitations associated with this ALIF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mini-open lateral retroperitoneal lumbar spine approach using psoas muscle retraction technique. Technical report and initial results on six patients

Aghayev

Vrionis

2013

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The main aim of this paper was to report reproducible method of lumbar spine access via a lateral retroperitoneal route. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of the technical aspects and clinical outcomes of six patients who underwent lateral multilevel retroperitoneal interbody fusion with psoas muscle retraction technique. The main goal was to develop a simple and reproducible technique to avoid injury to the lumbar plexus. Results Six patients were operated at 15 levels using psoas muscle retraction technique. All patients reported improvement in back pain and radiculopathy after the surgery. The only procedure-related transient complication was weakness and pain on hip flexion that resolved by the first follow-up visit. Conclusions Psoas retraction technique is a reliable technique for lateral access to the lumbar spine and may avoid some of the complications related to traditional minimally invasive transpsoas approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mini-open lateral retroperitoneal lumbar spine approach using psoas muscle retraction technique. Technical report and initial results on six patients

Aghayev

Vrionis

2013

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…-0 1 -14% ---Nomura et al [22] [23] 102 ± 44 -35 ± 76 -11% -2.1 2.2 Wada et al [24] 144 -60 -7% --- [27] 2014 XLIF Retrospective cohort, XLIF vs ALIF DDD, FBSS, spondylolisthesis 88 120 Smith et al [28] 2012 XLIF Retrospective cohort, XLIF vs ALIF DDD, LSS, FBSS, spondylolisthesis, herniation 115 87 1 Rodgers et al [12] 2010 XLIF Retrospective cohort, XLIF vs PLIF > 80 yr, LSS, FBSS spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, fracture 40 20 Huang et al [29] 2010 MIS-ALIF 2 Prospective cohort, MIS-ALIF vs ALIF Not defined 10 13 Case series 3 Rodgers et al [13] 2011 XLIF PCS LSS, DDD, FBSS, spondylolisthesis, scoliosis 600 -Ruetten et al [30] 2005 XLIF RCS Lumbar disc prolapse 463 -Lykissas et al [31] 2014 XLIF RCS Degenerative spinal conditions 144 -Grimm et al [32] 2014 XLIF RCS DDD, LSS, FBSS, scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, herniation 108 -Tohmeh et al [33] 2011 XLIF PCS LSS, DDD, spondylolisthesis, spondylosis, scoliosis, recurrent herniation, ASD…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Marchi et al [35] 2012 XLIF PCS Spondylolisthesis 52 -Sharma et al [36] 2011 XLIF RCS Spondylosis ± listhesis, scoliosis 43 -Pimenta et al [25] 2011 XLIF PCS DDD 36 -Ahmadian et al [37] 2013 XLIF RCS L4/L5 spondylolisthesis 31 -Caputo et al [38] 2012 XLIF PCS Scoliosis 30 -Malham et al [39] 2012 XLIF PCS DDD, spondylolisthesis, scoliosis 30 - 4 Pimenta et al [40] 2013 XLIF RCT L4/L5 DDD 30 -Elowitz et al [41] 2011 XLIF PCS LSS 25 -Oliveira et al [42] [27] ----28% 24% --Smith et al [28] 112 ± 31 173 ± 31 90 ± 74 311 ± 370 3% 6% 1.7 ± 1.3 3.6 ± 0.9 Rodgers et al [12] --1.4 g Hb 2.7 g Hb --1.3 5.3 Huang et al [29] 176 ± 8 202 ± 15 572 ± 93 970 ± 209 --11.6 ± 1.3 12.5 ± 1.3 Case series Rodgers et al [13] --1.38 g Hb -1% -1.2 -Ruetten et al [30] …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review

Skovrlj¹

2015

WJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To compare minimally invasive (MIS) and open techniques for MIS lumbar laminectomy, direct lateral and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgeries with respect to length of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), neurologic complications, perioperative transfusion, postoperative pain, postoperative narcotic use, and length of stay (LOS). METHODS:A systematic review of previously published studies accessible through PubMed was performed. Only articles in English journals or published with English language translations were included. Level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed. Statistical data was calculated with analysis of variance with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS:

show abstract

“…3,13,19,[24][25][26]31 Additionally, studies have reported that a minimally invasive approach has been shown to be associated with faster narcotic independence, faster return to work after surgery, decreased pain, and decreased surgical time. 16,19,22,27 A review article by Parker et al found accelerated return to work and narcotic independence after minimally invasive TLIF compared with open TLIF. 19 However, few other 16 It is important to point out the larger cost difference associated with indirect costs in this study, which is greater than 3 times more than the savings in direct costs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness analysis in minimally invasive spine surgery

Al-Khouja¹,

Baron²,

Johnson

et al. 2014

FOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object Medical care has been evolving with the increased influence of a value-based health care system. As a result, more emphasis is being placed on ensuring cost-effectiveness and utility in the services provided to patients. This study looks at this development in respect to minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) costs. Methods A literature review using PubMed, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) was performed. Papers were included in the study if they reported costs associated with minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). If there was no mention of cost, CEA, cost-utility analysis (CUA), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), quality, or outcomes mentioned, then the article was excluded. Results Fourteen studies reporting costs associated with MISS in 12,425 patients (3675 undergoing minimally invasive procedures and 8750 undergoing open procedures) were identified through PubMed, the CEA Registry, and NHS EED. The percent cost difference between minimally invasive and open approaches ranged from 2.54% to 33.68%—all indicating cost saving with a minimally invasive surgical approach. Average length of stay (LOS) for minimally invasive surgery ranged from 0.93 days to 5.1 days compared with 1.53 days to 12 days for an open approach. All studies reporting EBL reported lower volume loss in an MISS approach (range 10–392.5 ml) than in an open approach (range 55–535.5 ml). Conclusions There are currently an insufficient number of studies published reporting the costs of MISS. Of the studies published, none have followed a standardized method of reporting and analyzing cost data. Preliminary findings analyzing the 14 studies showed both cost saving and better outcomes in MISS compared with an open approach. However, more Level I CEA/CUA studies including cost/QALY evaluations with specifics of the techniques utilized need to be reported in a standardized manner to make more accurate conclusions on the cost effectiveness of minimally invasive spine surgery.

show abstract

A comparison of perioperative charges and outcome between open and mini-open approaches for anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion

Cited by 66 publications

References 46 publications

Mini-open lateral retroperitoneal lumbar spine approach using psoas muscle retraction technique. Technical report and initial results on six patients

Mini-open lateral retroperitoneal lumbar spine approach using psoas muscle retraction technique. Technical report and initial results on six patients

Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review

Cost-effectiveness analysis in minimally invasive spine surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About