Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: Patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis

Ochsner Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 32-37

  Sulaiman, Wale A R ^a   Singh, Manish ^a  

^a OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Costs and cost analysis; Outcome assessment; Pain measurement; Spinal fusion; Spinal instrumentation; Spondylolisthesis; Surgical procedures minimally invasive

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; SPINE FUSION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 84896294607     PISSN: 15245012     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ko SB, Lee SW. Prevalence of spondylolysis and its relationship with low back pain in selected population. Clin Orthop Surg. 2011 Mar;3(1):34-38. Epub 2011 Feb 15.
2. Kalichman L, Kim DH, Li L, Guermazi A, Berkin V, Hunter DJ. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: prevalence and association with low back pain in the adult community-based population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Jan 15;34(2):199-205.
3. Mehta VA, McGirt MJ, Garces Ambrossi GL, et al. Transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity. Neurol Res. 2011 Jan;33(1):38-42.
4. Moskowitz A. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Clin North Am. 2002 Apr; 33(2):359-366.
5. Harms J, Rolinger H: A one-stager procedure inoperative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl) [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982 May-Jun;120(3):343-347.
6. Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullman V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J. 2005 Aug;14(6): 551-558. Epub 2005 Jan 26.
7. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine(Phila Pa 1976). 1999 May 15;24(10):1023-1028.
8. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B, et al. The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Apr;18(5):568-574.
9. 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. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Jun;14(6): 771-778.
10. 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. 2011 Feb;54(1): 33-37.
11. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009 Dec;33(6): 1683-1688.
12. Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Mar 1; 32(5):537-543.
13. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, Hansen ES, Fruensgaard S, Bunger CE. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Dec 15;22(24):2813-2822.
14. Gallagher EJ, Liebman M, Bijur PE. Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Dec;38(6):633-638.
15. Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J. 2001 May;18(3):205-207.
16. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980 Aug; 66(8):271-273.
17. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Nov 15;25(22):2940-2952; discussion 2952.
18. 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). 2009 Jun 1;34(13):1385-1389.
19. 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. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008 Dec;9(6): 560-565.
20. Scott LP, Stephen KM, David NS, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (tlif) for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. In press.
21. Starkweather AR, Witek-Janusek L, Nockels RP, Peterson J, Mathews HL. The multiple benefits of minimally invasive spinal surgery: results comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar fusion. J Neurosci Nurs. 2008 Feb; 40(1):32-39.
22. Wang MY, Lerner J, Lesko J, McGirt MJ. Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012 Aug;25(6):324-328.
23. rd, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE. Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anteriorposterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord. 2001 Apr; 14(2):100-103.