Comparison between XXXX and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of @entity179 : a prospective cohort study.

@entity1 @entity2649 @entity190 @entity179 @entity1344 @entity717
BACKGROUND: Few studies compared radiographic and clinical outcomes between @entity1344 ( @entity1344 ) and @entity2649 ( @entity2649 ) in treating @entity179 ( @entity179 ). METHODS: A total of 176 consecutive @entity1 who underwent posterior instrumented spinal surgery for @entity179 between January 2007 and January 2009 were prospectively divided into two groups- @entity1344 and @entity2649 . All @entity1 included in the analysis were followed up for 3 years. Demographic distribution, perioperative complications, and radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The amount of intraoperative @entity190 and drained volume was significantly greater in the @entity2649 group compared with the @entity1344 group (881.1 ml versus 737.4 ml, p   =   0.004). The length of stay of @entity1 who had @entity2649 surgery (20.9 days) was significantly longer (p   =   0.033) than that of @entity1 who underwent @entity1344 surgery (18.9 days). @entity1 with @entity2649 surgery had higher total costs than those with @entity1344 surgery (US 12826.8 versus US 11654.5, p   =   0.002). No statistically significant differences existed in back visual analogue scale (VAS), leg VAS, or @entity717 index (ODI) scores between the @entity1344 and @entity2649 groups of @entity1 at each time point. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with @entity2649 , @entity1344 have advantages on @entity190 , length of stay in hospital, total charges, and radiographic outcomes, but no advantages on leg and back VAS or ODI scores. High-quality randomized controlled trials are still required in the future.
