Comparison of clinical outcomes in the national neurosurgery quality and outcomes database for open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Spine

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2016, Pages E416-E421

  Guan, Jian ^a   Bisson, Erica F ^a   Dailey, Andrew T ^a   Hood, Robert S ^a   Schmidt, Meic H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Discharge location; Length of stay; Minimally invasive surgery; National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database; ODI; Patient outcomes; Patient satisfaction; Return to work; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; VAS

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; DEFORMITY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOME; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; LUMBAR SPINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; NEUROSURGERY; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RETURN TO WORK; SPINE FUSION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TISSUE INJURY; TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84946423015     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001259     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Harms J,Rolinger H.[A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1982;120:343-7.
2. Cole CD, McCall TD, Schmidt MH, et al. Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2009;2:118-26.
3. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:S26-35.
4. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:941-4.
5. Styf JR, Willen J. The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:354-8.
6. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 2010;19:1780-4.
7. Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, et al. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:2049-55.
8. Terman SW, Yee TJ, Lau D, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;20:644-52.
9. Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J 2013;22:1741-9.
10. Jin-TaoQ,YuT,MeiW,etal.ComparisonofMISvs. openPLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2015;24:1058-65.
11. Parker SL, Godil SS, Zuckerman SL, et al. Extent of preoperative depression is associated with return to work after lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg 2015;83:608-13.
12. Harms J, Jeszenszky D. The unilateral tranforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 1998;6:88-9.
13. Park P, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 2008;25:E16.
14. McAfee PC, Phillips FM, Andersson G, et al. Minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:S271-3.
15. Schmidt MH. Minimally invasive surgery for metastatic spine disease.AOSpine Masters Series Volume 1: Metastatic Spinal Tumors. New York: Thieme; 2014. pp. 73-83.
16. Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R. Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:2273-81.
17. 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;9:560-5.
18. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 2010;1:12.
19. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 2009;33:1683-8.
20. Pereira P, Buzek D, Franke J, et al. Surgical data and early postoperative outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion: results of a prospective, multicenter, observational datamonitored study. PLoS One 2015;10:e0122312.
21. Wang HL, Lu FZ, Jiang JY, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011;124:3868-74.
22. McGirt MJ, Speroff T, Dittus RS, et al. The National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N2QOD): general overview and pilot-year description. Neurosurg Focus 2013;34:E6.
23. Asher AL, Speroff T, Dittus RS, et al. The National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N2OQD): a collaborative registry to advance value-based spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39 (22 suppl 1):S106-16.