Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Spine

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2017, Pages E177-E185

  Lu, Victor M ^a,b   Kerezoudis, Panagiotis ^a   Gilder, Hannah E ^a   McCutcheon, Brandon A ^a   Phan, Kevin ^b   Bydon, Mohamad ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Degenerative spondylolisthesis; Isthmic spondylolisthesis; Minimally invasive surgery; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; Spinal fusion; Spine; Spondylolisthesis; Systematic review; Transforaminal interbody fusion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DISEASE SEVERITY; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LENGTH OF STAY; META ANALYSIS; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OPEN SURGERY; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPINE FUSION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; COST; PROCEDURES; SPINAL STENOSIS;

COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; SPINAL FUSION; SPINAL STENOSIS; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84973570938     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001731     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Moller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine 2000;25:1711-5.
2. Ekman P, Moller H, Shalabi A, et al. A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration. Eur Spine J 2009;18:1175-86.
3. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2257-70.
4. Robertson PA, Plank LD. Prospective cohort analysis of disability reduction with lumbar spinal fusion surgery in community practice. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007;21:235-40.
5. Stienen MN, Smoll NR, Hildebrandt G, et al. Constipation after thoraco-lumbar fusion surgery. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2014;126:137-42.
6. Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL, et al. Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery 2015;77:847-74.
7. Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, et al. Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472:1727-37.
8. Sidhu GS, Henkelman E, Vaccaro AR, et al. Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:1792-9.
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. Phan K, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:E91-100.
11. Skovrlj B, Belton P, Zarzour H, et al. Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review. World J Orthop 2015;6:996-1005.
12. Wang XS, Sun RF, Ji Q, et al. A meta-analysis of interlaminar minimally invasive discectomy compared to conventional micro-discectomy for lumbar disk herniation. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2014;127:149-57.
13. Phan K, Rao PJ, Mobbs RJ. Percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation for treatment of thoracolumbar fractures: Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015;135:85-92.
14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PloS Med 2009;6:e1000097.
15. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res J 2014;14:1-13.
16. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:13.
17. Harris EB, Sayadipour A, Massey P, et al. Mini-open versus open decompression and fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2011;40:E257-61.
18. Rampersaud YR, Gray R, Lewis SJ, et al. Cost-utility analysis of posterior minimally invasive fusion compared with conventional open fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. SAS J 2011;5:29-35.
19. Saetia K, Phankhongsab A, Kuansongtham V, et al. Comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Med Assoc Thai 2013;96:41-6.
20. Sulaiman WA, Singh M. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolis-thesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Ochsner J 2014;14:32-7.
21. Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, et al. 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) 2009;34:1923-8.
22. Archavlis E, Carvi y Nievas M. Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J 2013;22:1731-40.
23. Ghahreman A, Ferch RD, Rao PJ, et al. Minimal access versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery 2010;66:296-304.
24. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, et al. Mid-termclinicalresultsofminimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2012;21:1171-7.
25. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg 2014;82:230-8.
26. 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.
27. Choma TJ, Schuster JM, Norvell DC, et al. Fusion versus nonoperative management for chronic low back pain: do comorbid diseases or general health factors affect outcome? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:S87-95.
28. Sclafani JA, Kim CW. Complications associated with the initial learning curve of minimally invasive spine surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472: 1711-1717.
29. Ahn J, Iqbal A, Manning BT, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression-the surgical learning curve. Spine J 2015.
30. Peng CWB, Yue WM, Poh SY, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2009;35:1385-9.
31. Borodano G, 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 2013;28:E559-64.
32. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 2010;35:1615-20.
33. 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;37:1548-57.
34. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating intial experience. Int Orthop 2009;33:1683-8.
35. Kim JY, Park JY, Kim KH, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondyalolisthesis: comparison between isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg 2015;84:1284-93.
36. Liu J, Deng H, Long X, et al. A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2016;25:1575-80.