Research Journal of Medical Sciences
ISSN: Online 1993-6095ISSN: Print 1815-9346
Abstract
Minimally invasive (MI) and open surgical techniques are commonly employed for spinal fusion procedures. Understanding the comparative efficacy and outcomes of these approaches is essential for informed clinical decision‐making. This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rates, functional outcomes, and revision surgery rates between MI and open surgical techniques for spinal fusion. A total of 100 patients undergoing spinal fusion were included in the study, with 50 patients in each group (MI and open surgery). Data on operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative complications, functional outcomes, and revision surgery were collected and analyzed. The MI group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (mean: 2.5 hours), lower blood loss (mean: 150 mL), and shorter hospital stays (mean: 3.2 days) compared to the open surgery group (operative time mean: 3.8 hours, blood loss mean: 300 mL, hospital stay mean: 5.1 days). While complication rates were lower in the MI group (12%) compared to the open surgery group (18%), the difference was not statistically significant. Functional outcomes and revision surgery rates were comparable between the two groups. Minimally invasive spinal fusion techniques offer advantages in terms of reduced operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay compared to open surgical approaches. Although complication rates were numerically lower in the MI group, further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to validate these findings.
How to cite this article:
Mohammad Sikandar. Comparative Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgical Techniques for Spinal Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort study.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36478/10.59218/makrjms.2023.7.1154.1157
URL: https://www.makhillpublications.co/view-article/1815-9346/10.59218/makrjms.2023.7.1154.1157