Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis

European Spine Journal

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 1058-1065

  Jin tao, Qu ^a   Yu, Tang ^b   Mei, Wang ^a   Xu dong, Tang ^a   Tian jian, Zhang ^a   Guo hua, Shi ^a   Lei, Chen ^a   Yue, Hu ^a   Zi tian, Wang ^a   Yue, Zhou ^b  

^a Department of Orthopedics   (China)

^b THIRD MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Complication rate; Fusion rate; Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MiTLIF); Revision rate; Visual analog scale (VAS)

Indexed keywords

BONE REGENERATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HOSPITAL READMISSION; HUMAN; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; META ANALYSIS; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; PROCEDURES; REOPERATION; SPINE FUSION; SURGERY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; OSSEOINTEGRATION; PATIENT READMISSION; REOPERATION; SPINAL FUSION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 84937762218     PISSN: 09406719     EISSN: 14320932     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-3890-5     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Kalanithi PS, Patil CG, Boakye M (2009) National complication rates and disposition after posterior lumbar fusion for acquired spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(18):1963–1969
2. Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, Misawa H (2009) Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(18):1923–1928
3. Rodriguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven E, Munoz-Marin J, Herrera A, Velilla J (2013) Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22(12):2857–2863
4. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) 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(8):479–484
5. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33(6):1683–1688
6. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(13):1385–1389
7. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2010) 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(10):1780–1784
8. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(17):1615–1620
9. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) 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
10. Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D (2011) Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci 18(5):624–627
11. Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(5):537–543
12. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A (2011) Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J
13. Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY (2005) Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(1):123–129
14. Zairi F, Arikat A, Allaoui M, Assaker R (2013) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison between open and mini-open approaches with two years follow-up. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 74(3):131–135
15. Harris EB, Sayadipour A, Massey P, Duplantier NL, Anderson DG (2011) Mini-open versus open decompression and fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 40(12):E257–E261
16. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21(11):2265–2270
17. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1(12)
18. Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25(9):603–605
19. Zdeblick TA (1998) Laparoscopic spinal fusion. Orthop Clin North Am 29(4):635–645
20. Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A (1993) Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18(5):575–581
21. McKinstry CS, Bell KE (1990) The failed back syndrome: the diagnostic contribution of computed tomography. Ulster Med J 59(2):122–130
22. Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, Vorwald P et al (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(15):1701–1707
23. Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR (2014) Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(6):1727–1737
24. Kim SS, Denis F, Lonstein JE, Winter RB (1990) Factors affecting fusion rate in adult spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15(9):979–984
25. Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R (2010) Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(26):2273–2281