DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1119777/v1
urpose: This study aimed to compare total blood loss (TBL) and hidden blood loss (HBL) in patients undergoing single-level open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF).
Methods: A total of 28 patients who underwent ULIF and 30 patients who underwent O-TLIF from March 2020 to October 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The Nadler’s formula was employed to estimate the patient’s blood volume (PBV), Gross’s formula to estimate TBL, and Sehat’s formula to estimate HBL. The obtained data were then analyzed with independent t test、chi-squared test, and analysis of covariance.
Results: TBL and measured blood loss (MBL) in ULIF group (360.00±245.74 ml, 117.43±83.09 ml) was significantly lower than O-TLIF group (542.29±233.25ml, 306.30±108.98ml). Nevertheless, the HBL in ULIF group was higher than that in O-TLIF group (242.57±242.49 ml vs 235.99±236.53 ml), however this was not statistically significant. (P=0.917). The HBL was 67.38± 25.63% of TBL in ULIF group and 43.52±17.39% of TBL in O-TLIF group. Patients in ULIF group had lower TBL and MBL, shorter duration of drainage, lower postoperative anemia, and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared to those in O-TLIF group.
Conclusions: Perioperative HBL should not be neglected in patients undergoing ULIF or O-TILF, as it accounts for a large percentage of TBL in both groups. ULIF is associated with lower TBL and MBL, postoperative anemia, shorter postoperative hospital stays compared with O-TLIF.
Posterior lumbar fusion is commonly used to treat degenerative spine disease (1). Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a surgical technique in which anterior column support is achieved using a posterolateral approach and unilateral cage insertion, along with posterior column stabilization using pedicle screw fixation to preserve posterior ligamentous structures (2, 3). A literature review and meta-analysis showed that compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), TLIF has fewer complications and shorter operation time (4). However, conventional open TLIF (O-TLIF) is associated with significant soft tissue morbidity and a long recovery period, which may cause adverse outcomes(5, 6).
Numerous types of minimally invasive spine surgeries that minimize injury to normal anatomical structures have been proposed for treating lumbar degenerative disease (1, 2, 5, 7–9). Relative to O-TLIF, minimally invasive TLIF (MI-TLIF) is reported to reduce intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, and time to discharge or recovery (10). Recently, unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has emerged as an alternative way of managing degenerative lumbar disease (9). ULIF requires only two small incisions and further decreases muscle injury. Past studies indicate that compared to MI-TLIF, ULIF causes less early postoperative back pain, earlier ambulation, and shorter hospital stay(5).
Previous studies have attributed perioperative bleeding solely to intraoperative blood loss (IBL) and postoperative drainage volume. However, we neglect that massive blood and exudation in remained in the gap of tissues. The concept of HBL was first introduced by Sehat et al (11)and its presence in orthopedic surgery was later confirmed by mounting evidence. Hui Zhang et al(12)reported that TBL was lower in MI-TLIF than in O-TLIF, while HBL was significantly higher in MI-TLIF. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined total blood loss (TBL) and measured blood loss (MBL) in patients undergoing ULIF. Here, we compared TBL and MBL in patients undergoing single-level O-TLIF and ULIF.
This retrospective study involved consecutive patients with single-level lumbar instability or degenerative disk disease who underwent O-TLIF or ULIF between March 2020 and October 2021. The inclusion criteria were, 1) patients with single operated segment O-TLIF or ULIF, 2) patients with unilateral neurological symptoms, unilateral decompressions and unilateral drainage, and 3) patients with complete clinical data. The exclusion criteria were: 1) previous lumbar surgery, 2) presence of infections and/or cancer, 3) patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, 4) patients with hematological malignancies, bleeding disorders, or chronic liver disease, 5) patients with missing data, and 6) patients who underwent autologous and allogeneic transfusion. A total of 58 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 28 belonged to the ULIF group and 30 to the O-TLIF group. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the ethics committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (No: JD-HG-2021-47). The following patient data were collected: gender, age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), level of fusion, fibrinogen level, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification score, operative time, length of postoperative hospital stay, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit (Hct), hemoglobin (Hb), and red blood cells (RBC).
Taking the left-side approach as an example, patients were placed in prone position under general anesthesia. After intraoperative fluoroscopy, landmarks for skin incision were place 2 cm above and below the target intervertebral disc on the bilateral side central surface projection of the pedicle axis. Subsequently, Four skin incisions, about 1.5 cm long, were made both on the bilateral side according to the landmarks. Contralateral percutaneous pedicle screws were placed under fluoroscopic guidance via contralateral two incisions. The ipsilateral cranial portal was used as a viewing portal and the ipsilateral caudal portal was used as a working portal (Figure 1A). Intraoperative view of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery was shown in Figure 1B. Muscle and soft tissue were detached from the left proximal lamina to create workspace. Using an ultrasonic scalpel, ipsilateral laminectomy and facetectomy was performed (Figure 2A), and the autologous bone harvested during these procedures used as bone grafts. The ligamentum flavum was then resected (Figure 2B) and herniated disk was exposed (Figure 2C). Pituitary forceps were then used to remove the intervertebral disc material (Figure 2D). Endplate preparation was wholly done under endoscopic view (Figure 2E). Using a bone grafting funnel, autologous bone were inserted and impacted into the intervertebral disc space. Next, using endoscopic guidance, a cage filled with local morselized bone was inserted (Figure 2F). After cage insertion, the ipsilateral percutaneous pedicle screws were inserted through the viewing and working portals. Ipsilateral percutaneous pedicle screws and rods were then placed through the same incision. A negative pressure drainage tube was placed in the decompression side intraoperatively.
O-TLIF was carried out as previously described (13, 14).
No patient required blood transfusion during or after the operation. Complete blood counts were done on all patients including Hct, RBC, and Hb before surgery and on the second or third postoperative day. By this time, the patients were hemodynamically stable and fluid shifts would have been largely completed (15, 16).
Patients’ height and weight were recorded preoperatively. IBL was recorded by the anesthetist and included blood in suction bottles, as well as blood in weighed sponges used during the procedure. Postoperative drainage volume was recorded every 24 h and the drainage tube removed when the drainage volume in the surgical area was ≤50 mL/d.
TBL was estimated by first determining patient blood volume (PBV) in milliliters using the following formula by Nadler at al (17).
PBV (mL) = [k1 × height (m)3 + k2 × weight (kg) + k3] × 1000.
For men: k1 = 0.3669, k2 = 0.03219, and k3 = 0.6041
For women: k1 = 0.3561, k2 = 0.03308, and k3 = 0.1833.
TBL was given by the product of PBV and Hct change using the following formula by Gross at al (18):
TBL (ml) = PBV (mL) × (HctPre - HctPost)/Hctave.
Where HctPre is preoperative Hct, HctPost is 2nd or 3rd day postoperative Hct, and Hctave is the mean of HctPre and HctPost.
MBL was calculated using the following formula:
MBL (mL) = Intraoperative blood loss (IBL, in mL) + Total postoperative drainage volume of the second or third postoperative day(mL).
It should be emphasized that total postoperative drainage volume of the second or third postoperative day was not equal to TDV because extubation was not performed on the second or third postoperative day for all patients. The ULIF procedure was carried in iso-osmotic saline solution. Because low IBL was detected intraoperatively but could not be calculated, the IBL in ULIF was disregarded.
HBL was calculated using the following formula by Sehat et al(15):
HBL (mL) = TBL (mL) – MBL (mL).
Anemia was indicated by a serum hemoglobin level <130g/L for men and <120 g/L for women based on the World Health Organization’s criteria.
All statistical analyses were done on SPSS version 20.0 (IBM). Values are presented as means ± SD. Continuous variables were compared using the independent t-test. Statistical significance of differences between categorical variables was tested using Chi-square test. The statistical significance of differences between groups was tested using univariate general linear model analysis of covariance. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Demographic data for the 58 patients are shown on Table 1. There was no significant difference between groups with regards to age, sex, weight, height, BMI, preoperative diagnosis, ASA classification, fibrinogen level, and the level of fusion between the 2 groups.
Variable | ULIF | O-TLIF | P-value |
---|---|---|---|
Number of patients | 28 | 30 | |
Gender (Male/Female) | 15/13 | 17/13 | 0.813 |
Age(year) | 54.00±7.00 | 54.97±11.27 | 0.694 |
Weight(kg) | 65.82±10.88 | 63.92±10.73 | 0.505 |
Height(m) | 1.63±0.069 | 1.66±0.097 | 0.227 |
BMI(kg/m2) | 24.79±3.60 | 23.26±2.85 | 0.078 |
Preoperative diagnosis | |||
Lumbar spinal stenosis | 25 | 28 | 0.583 |
Spondylolisthesis | 3 | 2 | |
Level of fusion | |||
L3-L4 | 1 | 2 | 0.088 |
L4-L5 | 21 | 14 | |
L5-S1 | 6 | 14 | |
ASA classification | |||
I | 18 | 17 | 0.553 |
II | 10 | 13 | |
Fibrinogen level | 2.88±0.68 | 2.85±0.59 | 0.849 |
Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-TLIF; Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, ULIF; BMI, body mass index; American Society of Anesthesiologists, ASA. Data are mean± standard deviation; *P < 0.05. |
Table2 Operative Time and Postoperative Hospital Stay Information
Variable |
ULIF |
O-TLIF |
P-value |
Operative time(minute) |
180.89±33.28 |
127.90±20.30 |
0.000* |
Postoperative hospital stay (day) |
5.75±1.18 |
7.27±3.84 |
0.047* |
Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-TLIF; Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, ULIF; Data are mean± standard deviation; *P < 0.05.
Relative to the O-TLIF group, ULIF was associated with significantly longer operation time and significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.000 and 0.047, respectively, Table 2). The ULIF group had shorter drainage duration (p=0.007) and lower TDV (p=0.000). Relative to the O-TLIF group, drainage volumes in the ULIF group were significantly lower in the first, second, and third postoperative day (p= 0.000, 0.003, and 0.045, respectively). Because the presence of physiological saline during ULIF made IBL difficult to calculate, ULIF-associated IBL was disregarded. The IBL in the O-TLIF group was 83.67±23.56 mL. MBL results are shown in Table 3.
Variable | ULIF | O-TLIF | P-value |
---|---|---|---|
Duration of drainage(day) | 2.29±0.46 | 2.83±0.95 | 0.007* |
Total amount of postoperative drainage(ml) | 112.57±83.88 | 275.33±150.72 | 0.000* |
Drainage of first postoperative day(ml) | 66.46±42.71 | 157.83±71.23 | 0.000* |
Drainage of second postoperative day(ml) | 37.54±37.49 | 69.83±41.31 | 0.003* |
Drainage of third postoperative day(ml) | 30.00±17.53 | 53.06±28.40 | 0.045* |
Intraoperative blood loss (ml) | / | 83.67±23.56 | / |
Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-TLIF; Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, ULIF; Data are mean± standard deviation; *P < 0.05. |
Analysis of perioperative blood revealed that relative to the O-TILF group, the ULIF group had significantly higher levels of postoperative Hct, Hb, and RBC (p = 0.008, 0.004, and 0.017, respectively; Table 4). The 2 groups did not differ significantly with regards to PBV and HBL. However, relative to the O-TLIF group, the HBL of TBL was significantly higher in the ULIF group (43.52±17.39% vs 67.38±25.63%, p=0.010). MBL was significantly higher in the O-TILF group (306.30±108.98 mL) than in the ULIF group (117.43±83.09 mL). The TBL was 542.29±233.25 ml (13.02 ± 6.78% of PBV) in O-TLIF group and 360.00±245.74 ml (8.73±6.35% of PBV) in ULIF group. TBL were significantly higher in the O-TILF group than in the ULIF group (p=0.005). The proportions of patients with anemia in the 2 groups are shown in Figure 3. The composition of total blood loss in the 2 groups is shown in Figure 4.
Variable | ULIF | O-TLIF | P-value |
---|---|---|---|
Preoperative haematocrit(%) | 40.82±4.25 | 37.39±4.13 | 0.008* |
Postoperative haematocrit(%) | 41.38±4.07 | 36.20±4.80 | |
Preoperative hemoglobin(g/L) | 139.11±17.57 | 123.71±14.70 | 0.004* |
Postoperative hemoglobin(g/L) | 140.73±14.07 | 119.13±16.22 | |
Preoperative red blood cells(10^12/L) | 4.65±0.43 | 4.15±0.35 | 0.017* |
Postoperative red blood cells(10^12/L) | 4.55±0.48 | 3.90±0.56 | |
Patient’s blood volume(ml) | 4125.70±620.75 | 4164.10±754.21 | 0.834 |
Total blood loss(ml) | 360.00±245.74 | 542.29±233.25 | 0.005* |
Measured blood loss(ml) | 117.43±83.09 | 306.30±108.98 | 0.000* |
Hidden blood loss (ml) | 242.57±242.49 | 235.99±236.53 | 0.917 |
TBL as a % of PBV | 8.73±6.35 | 13.02±6.78 | 0.007* |
HBL as a % of TBL | 67.38±25.63 | 43.52±17.39 | 0.010* |
Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-TLIF; Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, ULIF; Total blood loss, TBL;Hidden blood loss, HBL༛Patient’s blood volume, PBV. Data are mean ± standard deviation, *P < 0.05. |
Since its introduction in 2000, several studies have reported HBL in various types of orthopedic surgeries. Sehat et al. (11) found that mean HBL was 735 mL, accounting for 50% of TBL during total knee arthroplasty. Yoji Ogura et al. (19) showed that during 2- to 3-level posterior lumbar fusion, HBL varies from 678-1,267mL. Importantly, Foss and Kehlet et al. (20) reported that HBL was consistently associated with in-hospital complications and extended length of hospital stay. But as for now, no studies have reported HBL in ULIF. Here, we performed a retrospective analysis of HBL and TBL during ULIF and O-TLIF.
Michael et al.(21) reported that the IBL of ULIF was 65±38mL. However, ULIF’s IBL was minimal and difficult to calculate because of the volume of saline solution used for irrigation. Thus, in this study, the IBL of ULIF was neglected and incorporated into the calculations of HBL. HBL may result from blood hemolysis (22, 23), extravasation of blood into tissue compartments (24), and free fatty acids mediated oxidative damage of RBCs and Hb (25).
Previous studies (26–29) indicate that gender, multilevel, operative time, fibrinogen level, ASA classification, autologous and allogeneic transfusion, BMI, and surgical method were independent risk factors for HBL in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Here, to investigate the effect of surgical method on HBL, we used other variables as control variables. Our data show that mean HBL was 242.57±242.49 mL in ULIF (constituting up to 67.38% of TBL) and 235.99±236.53ml in O-TLIF (constituting up to 43.52% of TBL). Surprisingly, mean HBL did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the proportion of HBL in the two groups was significantly different. Our data indicate that HBL level was considerable and that it was the most important contributor to TBL in both ULIF and TLIF, which is consistent with past findings(12, 30). The difference in HBL composition between the groups may be explained by the following. 1) One non-negligible reason is that IBL in ULIF was neglected and factored into the HBL calculation. 2) The higher radiofrequency used in ULIF may have generated more oxidizing species that damaged RBCs and Hb. 3) HBL might be affected by the “learning curve” that accompanies the introduction of any new surgical method, resulting in higher HBL being observed during ULIF in the initial cases.
In our study, the MBL in O-TLIF (306.30±108.98mL) was significantly higher than in ULIF (117.43±83.09mL). ULIF involved two minimally invasive incisions; one for endoscopic viewing and the other for the insertion and manipulation of surgical tools. The advantages of ULIF include being minimally invasive, involving less muscular dissection, better surgical view, and more precise operation. These factors may explain the lower TBL in the ULIF group. Moreover, considering that ULIF was wholly performed in aqueous media, we pulled with all strength to hemostasis because even minor bleeding can obstruct the surgeon field of vision. Moreover, Xu et al. (31) pointed out that the components of drainage changed radically with time. Thus, rather than the drainage volume, the true blood component of the drainage should be taken into account. In contrast with O-TLIF, ULIF leaves a high volume of water in the muscle and spinal space following saline irrigation. From this, it is expected that there was more water in ULIF drainage. Thus, the true blood volume was less than the drainage volume we described and the true difference between the two groups may be larger.
Perioperative anemia is significantly associated with complications and length of hospital stay (32, 33). TBL only accounted for 8.73±6.35% of PBV in ULIF, which was markedly lower than in the O-TLIF group. As shown on Figure 3, lower TBL reduced the incidence of postoperative anemia in the ULIF group. As expected, relative to O-TLIF, ULIF was associated with significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay. HBL is the leading cause of perioperative anemia and hidden blood loss and perioperative anemia may be minimized by various interventions. A recent study (34) found that tranexamic acid reduces HBL during posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Hong Qian et al(35) found out that antioxidants attenuate oxidative stress-induced HBL in rats. However, more research is needed to identify new strategies for reducing HBL.
This study has some limitations. First, being retrospective, this study is inevitably susceptible to bias. Secondly, the study’s sample size was relatively small. Thirdly, disregarding ULIF’s IBL may have influenced our findings. Finally, studies (36, 37) show that fluid shifts may not be completed in all patients in 2 or 3 days after the operation. Thus, the HctPost we used to calculate TBL may not precise.
In summary, perioperative HBL should not be neglected when performing ULIF or O-TILF as it accounts for a large percentage of TBL in both groups. Lower TBL and MBL in the ULIF group lowers the incidence of postoperative anemia in patients, thereby reducing the length of postoperative hospital stay.
Total blood loss, TBL;Hidden blood loss, HBL;Patient’s blood volume, PBV; Measured blood loss, MBL; Intraoperative blood loss, IBL; Total postoperative drainage volume, TDV; Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-TLIF; Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, ULIF; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PLIF; Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, MI-TLIF; Body mass index, BMI; American Society of Anesthesiologists, ASA; Hematocrit, Hct; Hemoglobin, Hb; Red blood cells, RBC.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all of the participants in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, and we thank the support of patients.
Authors' contributions
Yu-jian Peng: Writing Original draft preparation; Zhi-yin Fan: Writing- Reviewing and Editing; Qian-liang Wang and Jun Dai:Data analysis and Methodology; Qian-zhong-yi Zhang and Jun-yin Cao:Data curation; Xiao-feng Liu:Supervision; Jun Yan: Conceptualization.
Funding
This study is sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81971036,82002345,81902239), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20191169), the Science and Technology Project of Suzhou (KJXW2019011) and the Preliminary Research Project of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (SDFEYBS1905).
Availability of data and material
The data set supporting the conclusion of this article is available on request to the corresponding author.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The retrospective study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (approval no: JD-HG-2021-47). Considering that this work was a retrospective study, the ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent from patients.
Consent for publication
All authors agree on publication in this journal.
Competing interests
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest and competing interest.