Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Neurosurgical Focus

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2013, Pages

  Silva, Pedro S ^a   Pereira, Paulo ^a   Monteiro, Pedro ^a   Silva, Pedro A ^a   Vaz, Rui ^a  

^a HOSPITAL DE SÃO JOÃO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Complications; Learning curve; Lumbar arthrodesis; Lumbar fusion; Minimally invasive; Spine; TLIF

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; EQUIPMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING CURVE; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; PATHOLOGY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPINE FUSION; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; SURGERY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING CURVE; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; YOUNG ADULT; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 84884371343     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10920684     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3171/2013.5.FOCUS13157     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ: Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:479-484, 2011
2. Bagan B, Patel N, Deutsch H, Harrop J, Sharan A, Vaccaro AR, et al: Perioperative complications of minimally invasive surgery (MIS): comparison of MIS and open interbody fusion techniques. Surg Technol Int 17:281-286, 2008
3. Danford DA, Kugler JD, Deal B, Case C, Friedman RA, Saul JP, et al: The learning curve for radiofrequency ablation of tachyarrhythmias in pediatric patients. Am J Cardiol 75:587-590, 1995
4. Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV: 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. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 9:560-565, 2008
5. Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F, Zhao X, Huang Y, Fang X: Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 19:316-324, 2010
6. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD: Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 (15 Suppl):S26-S35, 2003
7. Karikari IO, Isaacs RE: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (26 Suppl):S294-S301, 2010
8. Kim CW: Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (26 Suppl):S281-S286, 2010
9. Kim JS, Jung B, Lee SH: Instrumented minimally invasive spinal-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF); minimum 5-years follow-up with clinical and radiologic outcomes. J Spinal Disord Tech [epub ahead of print], 2012
10. Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ: Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37: 1548-1557, 2012
11. McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Lerner J, Engelhart L, Knight T, Wang MY: 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. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 14: 771-778, 2011
12. Ntoukas V, Müller A: Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53: 21-24, 2010
13. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ: Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 54: 33-37, 2011
14. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB: Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34: 1385-1389, 2009
15. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT: Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 5: 1-79, 2001
16. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33: 1683-1688, 2009
17. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35: 1615-1620, 2010
18. Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J [epub ahead of print], 2013
19. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1: 12, 2010
20. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J: 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: 1780-1784, 2010
21. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J: Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 20: 623-628, 2011
22. Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R: Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35: 2273-2281, 2010