Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Neurosurgery

Volumn 77, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 847-874

  Khan, Nickalus R ^a   Clark, Aaron J ^a,b   Lee, Siang Liao ^c   Venable, Garrett T ^d   Rossi, Nicholas B ^a   Foley, Kevin T ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^b SEMMES MURPHEY NEUROLOGIC AND SPINE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Minimally invasive; Spine surgery; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Indexed keywords

BACKACHE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LENGTH OF STAY; META ANALYSIS; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OPEN TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SPINE FUSION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; ADULT; BACK PAIN; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; BACK PAIN; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; OPERATIVE TIME; PAIN MEASUREMENT; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 84947777737     PISSN: 0148396X     EISSN: 15244040     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000913     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(suppl):S1-S6.
2. Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg. 2002;49:499-517.
3. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(15 suppl):S26-S35.
4. Brodano GB, Martikos K, Lolli F, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis grade I: minimally invasive versus open surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. Epub 2013 Oct 16.
5. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(11):2265-2270.
6. 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;34(13):1385-1389.
7. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009;33(6):1683-1688.
8. 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(23):2049-2055.
9. 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). 2010;35(17):1615-1620.
10. Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, et al. A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1694-1701.
11. Wong AP, Smith ZA, Stadler JA III, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014;25(2):279-304.
12. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neurosurg. 2012;78(1-2):178-184.
13. Wang HL, Lü FZ, Jiang JY, Ma X, Xia XL, Wang LX. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl). 2011;124(23):3868-3874.
14. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Postoperative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011;54(1):33-37.
15. Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR. Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1727-1737.
16. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of onelevel minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010;19 (10):1780-1784.
17. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, et al. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(5):598-604.
18. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19(6):829-835.
19. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
20. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
21. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group, Howick J, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, et al. OCEBM. 2013.
22. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical-epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed December 27, 2013.
23. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1-12.
24. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188.
25. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2001;323 (7304):101-105.
26. Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(10):1046-1055.
27. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634.
28. Yee TJ, Terman SW, LaMarca F, Park P. Comparison of adjacent segment disease after minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(10):1796-1801.
29. Lau D, Terman SW, Patel R, La Marca F, Park P. Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(4):356-361.
30. Ding Y, He S, Zhang H. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis stenosis [in Chinese]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2013;27(4):404-408.
31. Yang J, Kong Q, Song Y, Liu H, Zeng J. Comparison of short-term effectiveness between minimally invasive surgery- and open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative disease [in Chinese]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2013;27(3):262-267.
32. Zou S, Wang J, Pan W, Zheng Y, Huang B. Comparison of traumatic related index in serum between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for tissue injury [in Chinese]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2013;27(8):960-964.
33. Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(4 suppl 2):203-212; discussion 212-213.
34. Gu G, Zhang H, Fan G, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop. 2014;38(4):817-824.
35. Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(5):624-627.
36. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Nelson EL, Bulsara KR, Favors M, Thramann J. Safety of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and intervertebral recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(6):436-443.
37. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
38. Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(5):1148-1157.
39. 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. 2013;22(8):1741-1749.
40. Sun ZJ, Li WJ, Zhao Y, Qiu GX. Comparing minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2013;126(20):3962-3971.
41. 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). 2012;37(18):1548-1557.
42. Tan HJ, Wolf JS Jr, Ye Z, Wei JT, Miller DC. Complications and failure to rescue after laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2011;186(4):1254-1260.
43. Park P, Upadhyaya C, Garton HJ, Foley KT. The impact of minimally invasive spine surgery on perioperative complications in overweight or obese patients. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(3):693-699; discussion 693-699.
44. Lau D, Khan A, Terman SW, Yee T, La Marca F, Park P. Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in obese patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35(2):E10.
45. Wang J, Zhou Y, Feng Zhang Z, Qing Li C, Jie Zheng W, Liu J. Comparison of the clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(4):202-206.
46. Terman SW, Yee TJ, Lau D, Khan AA, La Marca F, Park P. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(6):644-652.
47. Karikari IO, Grossi PM, Nimjee SM, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion in patients older than 70 years of age: analysis of peri- and postoperative complications. Neurosurgery. 2011;68(4):897-902; discussion 902.
48. Wu WJ, Liang Y, Zhang XK, Cao P, Zheng T. Complications and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of one- or two-level degenerative disc diseases of the lumbar spine in patients older than 65 years. Chin Med J (Engl). 2012;125(14):2505-2510.