Clinical Research and Technique Note of TLIF by Wiltse Approach for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar

10Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy and share the technique notes of Wiltse Approach TLIF for the treating single segment degenerative lumbar spinal disease. Method: In this retrospective controlled study, 780 patients with single segment degenerative lumbar disease who were operated in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were randomly assigned to Wiltse approach group (group A, 410 cases) and conventional open approach group (group B, 370 cases). Patient's assessment of pain and disability were evaluated by the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) before and after surgery. The incision length, operative time, exposure time, intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss, time to ambulation, total length of hospitalization, serum creatine kinase, X-rays, CT and MRI were also evaluated. Results: There were no differences in sex, age, pre-operative ODI score, VAS score between the two groups (P > 0.05). The Wiltse approach group had a shorter incision length with 7.69 ± 0.44 cm compared to the conventional group with 11.13 ± 0.36 cm (P < 0.01). The average operative time was 119.20 ± 14.64 min with exposure time of 16.20 ± 3.42 min in the Wiltse approach group and 145.65 ± 16.98 min with 29.20 ± 3.42 min in the conventional group (P < 0.05, P < 0.01). Comparing the intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss, serum creatine kinase, time to ambulation, total length of hospitalization, the Wiltse approach group was less than the conventional open approach group (P < 0.05). The VAS score of the two groups decreased significantly with time, and the VAS score of the Wiltse group was significantly lower than that of the conventional open approach group (P < 0.05). At last investigation after operation, ODI scores of the two groups were significantly decreased compared with that before operation. Wiltse approach group was significantly lower than that of the conventional open approach group (P < 0.05). The multifidus of the two groups of patients had a certain degree of atrophy. But the Wiltse approach group multifidus muscle atrophy rate is significantly lower than the conventional open approach group. Conclusion: The Wiltse approach TLIF significantly reduces the damage to the paravertebral muscles and the postoperative incidence of chronic low back pain.

References Powered by Scopus

The stabilizing system of the spine: Part I. function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement

1608Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Multifidus muscle recovery is not automatic after resolution of acute, first-episode low back pain

847Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Evidence of lumbar multifidus muscle wasting ipsilateral to symptoms in patients with acute/subacute low back pain

777Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective observational study

11Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Comparative Analysis of Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Wiltse Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approaches for Treating Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Incidence and Predictive Factors of New Onset Postoperative Sacroiliac Joint Pain After Posterior Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Disease

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jin, Y. ming, Chen, Q., Chen, C. yong, Lyu, J., Shi, B., Yang, C., & Xia, C. (2021). Clinical Research and Technique Note of TLIF by Wiltse Approach for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar. Orthopaedic Surgery, 13(5), 1628–1638. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13055

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

63%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

25%

Researcher 1

13%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 5

45%

Nursing and Health Professions 4

36%

Sports and Recreations 1

9%

Neuroscience 1

9%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free