Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications

International Orthopaedics

Volumn 40, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 1883-1890

  Hu, Wei ^a   Tang, Jiandong ^a   Wu, Xianpei ^a   Zhang, Li ^a   Ke, Baoyi ^a  

^a Guilin People s Hospital   (China)

Author keywords

Complications; Minimally invasive spine surgery; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Indexed keywords

EMBASE; EPIDURAL HEMATOMA; FLUOROSCOPY; HEART VENTRICLE TACHYCARDIA; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INFECTION COMPLICATION; LENGTH OF STAY; MEDLINE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR FUSION; NERVE ROOT INJURY; OPEN TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR FUSION; OPERATION DURATION; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PNEUMONIA; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDARTHROSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SPINE FUSION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; WOUND INFECTION; BONE SCREW; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; LUMBOSACRAL REGION; PROCEDURES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BONE SCREWS; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; LUMBOSACRAL REGION; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; OPERATIVE TIME; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84961203651     PISSN: 03412695     EISSN: 14325195     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3153-z     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolithesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347
2. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:567–571
3. Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O'Brien MF, Smith DA (2002) Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15(1):31–38
4. Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV (2001) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications and early results. Neurosurgery 48(3):569–574, discussion 574–5
5. Salehi SA, Tawk R, Ganju A, LaMarca F, Liu JC, Ondra SL (2004) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery 54(2):368–374, discussion 374
6. Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW Jr, Kuklo TR (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(4):37–46
7. Foley KT, Gupta SK (2002) Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg 97(1 suppl):7–12
8. Lucio JC, Vanconia RB, Deluzio KJ, Lehmen JA, Rodgers JA, Rodgers W (2012) Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 5:65–74. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S30974
9. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2004) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. Accessed April 29, 2004
10. Archavlis E, Carvi YNM (2013) Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J 22:1731–1740. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2732-6
11. Brodano GB, Martikos K, Lolli F, Gasbarrini A, Cioni A, Bandiera S, Silvestre MD, Boriani S, Greggi T (2015) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative disk disease and spondylolisthesis grade I: minimally invasive versus open surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(10):E559–E564. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000034
12. Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, Zhang K, Yeo W, Tan SB, Yue WM (2013) Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(23):2049–2055. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a8212d
13. Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Oglesby M, Pelton MA, Andersson GB, Isayeva D, Jegier BJ, Phillips FM (2014) A peri-operative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 14(8):1694–1701. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.053 16
14. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J (2012) Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci 19(6):829–835. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2011.10.004
15. 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. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2281-4
16. 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. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055cac
17. 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):624–7. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2010.09.004
18. Wang HL, Lü FZ, Jiang JY, Ma X, Xia XL, Wang LX (2011) Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J 124(23):3868–3874
19. Fan SW, Zhao X, Zhao FD et al (2010) Minimally invasive transforminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Spine 35(17):1615–20
20. 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. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z
21. 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. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be
22. 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. doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0687-8
23. 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 32(5):537–543
24. Guangfei G, Hailong Z, Guoxin F, Shisheng H, Xiaobing C, Xiaolong S, Xiaofei G, Xu Z (2014) Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop 38(4):817–824
25. Mariscalco MW, Yamashita T, Steinmetz MP, Krishnaney AA, Lieberman IH, Mroz TE (2011) Radiation exposure to the surgeon during open lumbar microdiscectomy and minimally invasive microdiscectomy: a prospective, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(3):255–260. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ceb976