Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: Meta-analysis and systematic review

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 416-427

  Goldstein, Christina L ^a   Macwan, Kevin ^b   Sundararajan, Kala ^b   Rampersaud, Y Raja ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b TORONTO WESTERN HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Adverse events; Comparative effectiveness; Lumbar spine fusion; Meta analysis; Minimally invasive spine surgery; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; CLINICAL OUTCOME; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LENGTH OF STAY; META ANALYSIS; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; POSTERIOR SPINE FUSION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REOPERATION; REVIEW; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; ADVERSE EFFECTS; LUMBOSACRAL REGION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; SPINE FUSION; SURGERY;

HUMANS; LUMBOSACRAL REGION; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); SPINAL FUSION;

EID: 84982128118     PISSN: 15475654     EISSN: 15475646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3171/2015.2.SPINE14973     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ: 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 24:479-484, 2011
2. Bagan B, Patel N, Deutsch H, Harrop J, Sharan A, Vaccaro AR, et al: Perioperative complications of minimally invasive surgery (MIS): comparison of MIS and open interbody fusion techniques. Surg Technol Int 17:281-286, 2008
3. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Lang D, Jaeschke R, Williams JW, et al: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions. Allergy 64:669-677, 2009
4. Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR II, Glassman SD, Johnson JR: Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:2089-2092, 2003
5. Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR, Kim JH, Kim SS, Choi WK, et al: Complications in posterior fusion and instrumentation for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2232-2237, 2007
6. De la Garza-Ramos R, Bydon M, Abt N, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Bydon A, et al: The impact of obesity on short- and long-term outcomes following lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [epub ahead of print], 2014
7. DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177-188, 1986
8. 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 9:560-565, 2008
9. Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F, Zhao X, Huang Y, Fang X: Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 19:316-324, 2010
10. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD: Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 (15 Suppl):S26-S35, 2003
11. Fourney DR, Dettori JR, Norvell DC, Dekutoski MB: Does minimal access tubular assisted spine surgery increase or decrease complications in spinal decompression or fusion? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (9 Suppl):S57-S65, 2010
12. Garry R, Fountain J, Mason S, Hawe J, Napp V, Abbott J, et al: The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy. BMJ 328:129, 2004
13. Ghahreman A, Ferch RD, Rao PJ, Bogduk N: Minimal access versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery 66:296-304, 2010
14. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Dimar JR, Johnson JR, Puno RM, et al: Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 9:13-21, 2009
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 472:1727-1737, 2014
16. Harris EB, Sayadipour A, Massey P, Duplantier NL, Anderson DG: Mini-open versus open decompression and fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Am J Orthop 40:E257-E261, 2011
17. Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, et al: Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3:98-105, 2005
18. Kalanithi PA, Arrigo R, Boakye M: Morbid obesity increases cost and complication rates in spinal arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:982-988, 2012
19. Karikari IO, Grossi PM, Nimjee SM, Hardin C, Hodges TR, Hughes BD, et al: Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion in patients older than 70 years of age: analysis of periand postoperative complications. Neurosurgery 68:897-902, 2011
20. Karikari IO, Isaacs RE: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (26 Suppl):S294-S301, 2010
21. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A: Midterm 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 21:1171-1177, 2012
22. 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 18:624-627, 2011
23. 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) 37:1548-1557, 2012
24. Lee KH, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Yue WM: Learning curve of a complex surgical technique: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). J Spinal Disord Tech 27:E234-E240, 2014
25. 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 21:2265-2270, 2012
26. Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Comstock BA, Hollingworth W, et al: Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA 299:656-664, 2008
27. McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Lerner J, Engelhart L, Knight T, Wang MY: Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 14:771-778, 2011
28. Mirza SK, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Lee LA, Goodkin R: Towards standardized measurement of adverse events in spine surgery: conceptual model and pilot evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:53, 2006
29. 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 19:829-835, 2012
30. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG : Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1006-1012, 2009
31. Neyeloff JL, Fuchs SC, Moreira LB: Meta-analyses and forest plots using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet: Step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Res Notes 5:52, 2012
32. Ntoukas V, Müller A: Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53:21-24, 2010
33. Pace KT, Dyer SJ, Stewart RJ, Honey RJ, Poulin EC, Schlachta CM, et al: Health-related quality of life after laparoscopic and open nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 17:143-152, 2003
34. Park P, Upadhyaya C, Garton HJ, Foley KT: The impact of minimally invasive spine surgery on perioperative complications in overweight or obese patients. Neurosurgery 62:693-699, 2008
35. Park Y, Ha JW: Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:537-543, 2007
36. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ: Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 54:33-37, 2011
37. Pelton MA, Phillips FM, Singh K: A comparison of perioperative costs and outcomes in patients with and without workers' compensation claims treated with minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1914-1919, 2012
38. 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) 34:1385-1389, 2009
39. Proietti L, Scaramuzzo L, Schiro' GR, Sessa S, Logroscino CA: Complications in lumbar spine surgery: A retrospective analysis. Indian J Orthop 47:340-345, 2013
40. Rampersaud YR: Commentary: complications in spine surgery: "the devil is in the details". Spine J 12:207-208, 2012
41. Rampersaud YR, Gray R, Lewis SJ, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG: Cost-utility analysis of posterior minimally invasive fusion compared with conventional open fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. SAS J 5:29-35, 2011
42. Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI: Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 60 (4 Suppl 2):203-213, 2007
43. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33:1683-1688, 2009
44. Schoenfeld AJ, Ochoa LM, Bader JO, Belmont PJ Jr: Risk factors for immediate postoperative complications and mortality following spine surgery: a study of 3475 patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1577-1582, 2011
45. Selznick LA, Shamji MF, Isaacs RE: Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:207-213, 2009
46. Silva PS, Pereira P, Monteiro P, Silva PA, Vaz R: Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 35(2):E7, 2013
47. Starkweather AR, Witek-Janusek L, Nockels RP, Peterson J, Mathews HL: The multiple benefits of minimally invasive spinal surgery: results comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar fusion. J Neurosci Nurs 40:32-39, 2008
48. Street JT, Lenehan BJ, DiPaola CP, Boyd MD, Kwon BK, Paquette SJ, et al: Morbidity and mortality of major adult spinal surgery. A prospective cohort analysis of 942 consecutive patients. Spine J 12:22-34, 2012
49. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008-2012, 2000
50. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, Hansen ES, Fruensgaard S, Bünger CE: 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2813-2822, 1997
51. Topçu O, Karakayali F, Kuzu MA, Ozdemir S, Erverdi N, Elhan A, et al: Comparison of long-term quality of life after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:291-295, 2003
52. Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, Misawa H: Miniopen 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) 34:1923-1928, 2009
53. Valentine JC, Pigott TD, Rothstein HR: How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. J Educ Behav Stat 35:215-247, 2010
54. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12, 2010
55. 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) 124:3868-3874, 2011
56. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ Zheng WJ, Liu J: Comparison of clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 27:202-206, 2014
57. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J: Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 19:1780-1784, 2010
58. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J: Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 20:623-628, 2011
59. Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA: An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 12:694-699, 2010
60. Wu RH, Fraser JF, Härtl R: Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:2273-2281, 2010
61. Zhang YG, Guo TM, Guo X, Wu SX: Clinical diagnosis for discogenic low back pain. Int J Biol Sci 5:647-658, 2009