Minimally invasive spinal surgery versus traditional open surgery in the treatment of spinal trauma

  Objective  To compare the effect of minimally invasive spinal surgery and traditional open surgery in the treatment of spinal trauma.

  Methods  A total of 120 spinal trauma patients were selected and randomly divided into control group and observation group according to order of hospital admission, with 60 cases in each group. The control group was treated with traditional open surgery, while the observation group was treated with minimally invasive spinal surgery. Therapeutic effect, operation time, intra-operative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative activity time, pain score, Cobb angle and anterior compression height before and after surgery, complications and Frankel classification of spinal cord injury were compared between two groups.

  Results  The total effective rate of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). The operation time, intra-operative bleeding volume, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative activity time and pain score of the observation group were significantly better than those of the control group (P < 0.05). The Cobb angle and anterior compression height of the spine in the observation group were significantly lower than those of the control group after treatment (P < 0.05). The incidence rate of postoperative complications in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). After 3 months of follow-up, the proportion of grade E in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05).

  Conclusion  Compared with traditional open surgery, minimally invasive spinal surgery has definite curative effect, shorter operation time and hospitalization time, less intra-operative bleeding, faster recovery and lower incidence rate of complications.