Actin-free Gc-globulin after minimal access and conventional anterior lumbar surgery

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

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

A total of 11 pertinent laminectomy studies, 20 direct lateral studies, and 27 TLIF studies were found. For laminectomy, MIS techniques resulted in a significantly longer length of surgery (177.5 min vs 129.0 min, P = 0.04), shorter LOS (4.3 d vs 5.3 d, P = 0.01) and less perioperative pain (visual analog scale: 16 ± 17 vs 34 ± 31, P = 0.04). There is evidence of decreased narcotic use for MIS patients (postoperative intravenous morphine use: 9.3 mg vs 42.8 mg), however this difference is of unknown significance. Direct lateral approaches have insufficient comparative data to establish relative perioperative outcomes. MIS TLIF had superior EBL (352 mL vs 580 mL, P < 0.0001) and LOS (7.7 d vs 10.4 d, P < 0.0001) and limited data to suggest lower perioperative pain.

CONCLUSION

Based on perioperative outcomes data, MIS approach is superior to open approach for TLIF. For laminectomy, MIS and open approaches can be chosen based on surgeon preference. For lateral approaches, there is insufficient evidence to find non-inferior perioperative outcomes at this time.

Is Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Also Minimally Pro-Inflammatory? Muscular Markers, Inflammatory Parameters and Cytokines to Quantify the Operative Invasiveness Assessment in Spine Fusion

Over the last decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques entered in the surgical routine due to their major advantage in reducing the unnecessary exposure of tissue and, thus, the trauma. Even in the context of orthopedics and spine surgery these practices have been widely developed and applied. Besides the clinical outcome of the patients, few studies have quantitatively assessed the traumatic and inflammatory effects of a specific surgical technique. Indeed, currently, a universally accepted biological outcome measure, such as a panel of biochemical markers, to define the success of MIS approach is still lacking. We reviewed the literature to collect the published data regarding the quantitative analysis of trauma induced by either conventional or minimally invasive surgery with the aim of highlighting evidence useful to guide future studies. Previous publications show some evidence in support of the hypothesis that MIS approaches are less traumatic, and possibly less pro-inflammatory, than conventional ones. Creatin kinase (as a marker of muscular damage) and C-reactive protein (as a marker of systemic inflammation) seem to reproducibly follow different trends in minimally invasive surgery compared to conventional procedures. Moreover, cytokines, such as interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-10 are also promising markers in this context.