Comparison of open and minimally invasive techniques for posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion after open anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Spine Journal

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 489-497

  Kepler, Christopher K ^a   Yu, Anthony L ^a   Gruskay, Jordan A ^a   Delasotta, Lawrence A ^a   Radcliff, Kristen E ^a   Rihn, Jeffrey A ^a   Hilibrand, Alan S ^a   Anderson, D Greg ^a   Vaccaro, Alexander R ^a  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion; Complications; Lumbar spinal fusion; Minimally invasive surgery; Percutaneous pedicle screw placement

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT;

ADULT; ANTERIOR SPINE FUSION; ARTICLE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEBRIDEMENT; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMAN; IATROGENIC DISEASE; LENGTH OF STAY; LUNG EMBOLISM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MINIMALLY INVASIVE PROCEDURE; MORBIDITY; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; PEDICLE SCREW; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTERIOR SPINE FUSION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; SURGICAL INFECTION;

CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE;

EID: 84877691419     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: 18781632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.034     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Y. Park, and J.W. Ha Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach Spine 32 2007 537 543
2. J.W. German, M.A. Adamo, and R.G. Hoppenot Perioperative results following lumbar discectomy: comparison of minimally invasive discectomy and standard microdiscectomy Neurosurg Focus 25 2008 E20
3. M. Rahman, L.E. Summers, and B. Richter Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the "classic" open approach Minim Invasive Neurosurg 51 2008 100 105
4. C. Schizas, N. Tzinieris, E. Tsiridis, and V. Kosmopoulos Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience Int Orthop 33 2009 1683 1688
5. D. Lau, J.G. Lee, and S.J. Han Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) J Clin Neurosci 18 2011 624 627
6. L.T. Holly, J.D. Schwender, D.P. Rouben, and K.T. Foley Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Indications, technique, and complications Neurosurg Focus 20 2006 E6
7. C.W. Peng, W.M. Yue, and S.Y. Poh Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Spine 34 2009 1385 1389
8. V. Ntoukas, and A. Muller Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53 2010 21 24
9. R.H. Wu, J.F. Fraser, and R. Hartl Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates Spine 35 2010 2273 2281
10. A.M. Nowitzke Assessment of the learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy Neurosurgery 56 2005 755 762 discussion 755-762
11. D.G. Anderson, A. Sayadipour, and K. Shelby Anterior interbody arthrodesis with percutaneous posterior pedicle fixation for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine Eur Spine J 20 2011 1323 1330
12. J.E. Lonstein, F. Denis, and J.H. Perra Complications associated with pedicle screws J Bone Joint Surg Am 81 1999 1519 1528
13. E.W. Nottmeier, W. Seemer, and P.M. Young Placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws using three-dimensional image guidance: experience in a large patient cohort J Neurosurg Spine 10 2009 33 39
14. M. Gundanna, M. Eskenazi, and J. Bendo Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring of lumbar pedicle screw placement for in situ posterior spinal fusion Spine J 3 2003 370 376
15. H.J. Kim, C. Kepler, and M. Cunningham Pulmonary embolism in spine surgery: a comparison of combined anterior/posterior approach versus posterior approach surgery Spine 36 2011 177 179
16. S.S. Dhall, M.Y. Wang, and P.V. Mummaneni Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up J Neurosurg Spine 9 2008 560 565
17. F. Shunwu, Z. Xing, Z. Fengdong, and F. Xiangqian Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases Spine 35 2010 1615 1620
18. A.T. Villavicencio, S. Burneikiene, and C.M. Roeca Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Surg Neurol Int 1 2010 12
19. J. Wang, Y. Zhou, and Z.F. Zhang Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2 Eur Spine J 19 2010 1780 1784
20. R.W. Toner, L. Pizzi, and B. Leas Costs to hospitals of acquiring and processing blood in the US: a survey of hospital-based blood banks and transfusion services Appl Health Econ Health Policy 9 2011 29 37
21. K. Perisinakis, N. Theocharopoulos, and J. Damilakis Fluoroscopically guided implantation of modern cardiac resynchronization devices: radiation burden to the patient and associated risks J Am Coll Cardiol 46 2005 2335 2339
22. M.W. Mariscalco, T. Yamashita, and M.P. Steinmetz Radiation exposure to the surgeon during open lumbar microdiscectomy and minimally invasive microdiscectomy: a prospective, controlled trial Spine 36 2011 255 260
23. M.Y. Wang, M.D. Cummock, Y. Yu, and R.A. Trivedi An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion J Neurosurg Spine 12 2010 694 699
24. A.T. Villavicencio, S. Burneikiene, K.R. Bulsara, and J.J. Thramann Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability J Spinal Disord Tech 19 2006 92 97
25. A.G. Kasis, L.A. Marshman, M. Krishna, and C.K. Bhatia Significantly improved outcomes with a less invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion incorporating total facetectomy Spine 34 2009 572 577
26. S.L. Parker, O. Adogwa, and T.F. Witham Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis Minim Invasive Neurosurg 54 2011 33 37
27. M.J. McGirt, S.L. Parker, and J. Lerner Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients J Neurosurg Spine 14 2011 771 778
28. D.R. Fourney, J.R. Dettori, D.C. Norvell, and M.B. Dekutoski Does minimal access tubular assisted spine surgery increase or decrease complications in spinal decompression or fusion? Spine 35 9 Suppl 2010 S57 S65