Comparing the Incidence of Index Level Fusion Following Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy

dc.contributor.author

McAnany, SJ

dc.contributor.author

Overley, SC

dc.contributor.author

Anwar, MA

dc.contributor.author

Cutler, HS

dc.contributor.author

Guzman, JZ

dc.contributor.author

Kim, JS

dc.contributor.author

Merrill, RK

dc.contributor.author

Cho, SK

dc.contributor.author

Hecht, AC

dc.contributor.author

Qureshi, SA

dc.date.accessioned

2022-12-01T14:33:16Z

dc.date.available

2022-12-01T14:33:16Z

dc.date.issued

2018-02-01

dc.date.updated

2022-12-01T14:33:16Z

dc.description.abstract

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: To determine the incidence of index level fusion following open or minimally invasive lumbar microdiscectomy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 174 patients with a symptomatic single-level lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus who underwent microdiscectomy via a mini-open approach (MIS; 39) or through a minimally invasive dilator tube (135). Outcomes of interest included revision microdiscectomy and the ultimate need for index level fusion. Continuous variables were analyzed with independent sample t test, and χ2 analysis was used for categorical data. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for patients that required index level fusion after lumbar microdiscectomy. Results: There was no difference in patient demographics in the open and MIS groups aside from length of follow-up (60.4 vs 40.03 months, P <.0001) and body mass index (24.72 vs 27.21, P =.03). The rate of revision microdiscectomy was not statistically significant between open and MIS approaches (10.3% vs 10.4%, P =.90). The rate of patients who ultimately required index level fusion approached significance, but was not statistically different between open and MIS approaches (10.3% vs 4.4%, P =.17). Multivariate regression analysis indicated that the need for eventual index level fusion after lumbar microdiscectomy was statistically predicted in smokers and those patients who underwent revision microdiscectomy (P <.05) in both open and MIS groups. Conclusions: Our results suggest a low likelihood of patients ultimately requiring fusion following microdiscectomy with predictors including smoking status and a history of revision microdiscectomy.

dc.identifier.issn

2192-5682

dc.identifier.issn

2192-5690

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/26253

dc.language

en

dc.publisher

SAGE Publications

dc.relation.ispartof

Global Spine Journal

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1177/2192568217718818

dc.title

Comparing the Incidence of Index Level Fusion Following Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Anwar, MA|0000-0002-0723-4710

pubs.begin-page

11

pubs.end-page

16

pubs.issue

1

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Anesthesiology

pubs.organisational-group

Anesthesiology, Pain Management

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

8

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
index level fusion.pdf
Size:
228.86 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version