header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY – IS IT WORTH IT? BALLOON ASSISTED MINI-ALIF VERSUS CONVENTIONAL OPEN RETRO-PERITONEAL APPROACH FOR ANTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSIONS



Abstract

Recent years have seen the popularization of minimally invasive approaches to the spine.

However, the use of the balloon assisted retroperitoneal approach has not been widely described, moreover there has been no direct comparison between this mini-ALIF (anterior lumbar interbody fusion) and the conventional open method in the literature.

Comparison of peri and intra-operative parameters between the rnini-ALIF (using the balloon assisted dissector and Synframe retractor system) and the open midline approach for single and double level anterior lumbar interbody fusions in order to assess the efficacy of this procedure.

An independent retrospective evaluation of 35 patients who underwent single or double level ALIF under the care of the senior author at the University Hospital, Nottingham during the period from 1997 to 2000. The patients were split between those undergoing a mini-ALIF (balloon assisted retroperitoneal dissection) or the conventional approach via a larger midline incision. The groups were matched for age, sex and number of levels. Data was collated from the medical notes with regards to intra-operative blood loss, operative time, intra-operative complications, PCA requirements, time to mobilisation and length of hospital stay.

A statistically significant (p=0. 01) reduction in time to mobilisation (mean 2. 1 days vs 3. 9 days) and operative time (mean 175mins vs 265mins) was found for the single level mini-ALIF. This reflects the greater number of L5/SI fusions in this group. The number of vascular injuries was also greater in the approach to L4/5.

No difference was found between the two groups for double level procedures.

The immediate advantages of a less invasive approach both to the patient and hospital do not appear to be borne out by this study. Cosmesis was not assessed and the long term functional outcome awaits later confirmation.

The abstracts were prepared by Mr Simon Donell. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the Department of Orthopaedics, Norfolk & Norwich Hospital, Level 4, Centre Block, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, United Kingdom