Search

Background: Despite recent treatment developments, back pain and related disabilities still represent a challenge for practitioners. Among the available surgical techniques, many different features and outcomes have been investigated; however, aesthetic result was missing among them. The present investigation was designed to prospectively compare patient-oriented aesthetic results after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and standard open surgery (SOS) for the lumbar spine. Methods: This was a prospective observational study with 1-year follow-up. Patients who underwent SOS were assigned to group 1 and MIS to group 2. Patient-oriented aesthetic result evaluation was collected using a dedicated visual aesthetic analogue scale. The Vancouver Scar Scale was used to exclude objective underlying influencing factors. The Oswestry Disability Index and a 10-point itemized visual analogue scale for back pain were administered to assess the clinical and functional status. Follow-up data were collected before discharge at 1, 6, and 12 months. Statistical analysis was conducted, and P < 0.05 was considered as significant. Results: We enrolled 74 patients, 44 in group 1 and 30 in group 2. The 2 groups were homogeneous for demographic and clinical data. No clinical or functional differences were measured at the end of follow-up. Visual aesthetic analogue scale reported greater mean values in group 1 at every follow-up time. Conclusions: Patients seem to prefer the aesthetic result from a single midline incision after SOS compared with MIS. The use of specific techniques could be considered if there is scientific evidence reporting greater aesthetic outcome, having similar clinical and functional ones.

Objective: This study aimed to quantify the discrepancy between intraoperative and postoperative segmental lordosis in patients operated on for lumbar degenerative diseases, with 3 different fixation techniques: open posterolateral instrumentation alone (PLI) or in association with lumbar interbody cages (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF] or extreme lateral interbody fusion [XLIF]). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all adult patients affected by single-segment degenerative spondylotic disease who underwent PLI alone or percutaneous posterolateral instrumentation (pPLI) in association with TLIF or XLIF between April 2015 and December 2017 at our institution. Group I included patients who underwent PLI with transpedicular screws and rods, interlaminar bilateral decompression, and posterolateral fusion with autologous bone chips. Group II included patients treated with pPLI + TLIF using a complete unilateral arthrectomy. Group III included patients operated on with minimally invasive retroperitoneal pPLI + XLIF. Results: No major complications were reported. The mean segmental loss of lordosis values ranged from 9.17% to 12.28% in Group I, from 6.31%–9.43% in Group II, and from 3.05%–4.71% in Group III. The statistical analysis revealed that pPLI + XLIF maintained a higher segmental lordosis than PLI and pPLI +TLIF in each operated segment (P < 0.05). pPLI + TLIF was more effective than PLI in reducing the loss of lordosis at L4-L5 and at L5-S1 (P < 0.05) but not at L3-L4 (P = 0.12). Conclusions: The documented mismatch between the preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis might affect the clinical outcome. Its relevance depends on the surgical technique used at the single level.