Dataset Information

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to the lumbar spine for posterior fusion are increasingly being utilized, the comparative outcomes of MIS and open posterior lumbar fusion remain unclear.

Questions/purposes

In this systematic review, we compared MIS and open transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF), specifically with respect to (1) surgical end points (including blood loss, surgical time, and fluoroscopy time), (2) clinical outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] and VAS pain scores), and (3) adverse events.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE(®), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Reference lists were manually searched. We included studies with 10 or more patients undergoing MIS compared to open TLIF/PLIF for degenerative lumbar disorders and reporting on surgical end points, clinical outcomes, or adverse events. Twenty-six studies of low- or very low-quality (GRADE protocol) met our inclusion criteria. No significant differences in patient demographics were identified between the cohorts (MIS: n = 856; open: n = 806).

Results

Equivalent operative times were observed between the cohorts, although patients undergoing MIS fusion tended to lose less blood, be exposed to more fluoroscopy, and leave the hospital sooner than their open counterparts. Patient-reported outcomes, including VAS pain scores and ODI values, were clinically equivalent between the MIS and open cohorts at 12 to 36 months postoperatively. Trends toward lower rates of surgical and medical adverse events were also identified in patients undergoing MIS procedures. However, in the absence of randomization, selection bias may have influenced these results in favor of MIS fusion.

Conclusions

Current evidence examining MIS versus open TLIF/PLIF is of low to very low quality and therefore highly biased. Results of this systematic review suggest equipoise in surgical and clinical outcomes with equivalent rates of intraoperative surgical complications and perhaps a slight decrease in perioperative medical complications. However, the quality of the current literature precludes firm conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of MIS versus open posterior lumbar fusion from being drawn and further higher-quality studies are critically required.

SUBMITTER: Goldstein CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4016464 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review.

Goldstein Christina L CL Macwan Kevin K Sundararajan Kala K Rampersaud Y Raja YR

Clinical orthopaedics and related research 20140601 6

<h4>Background</h4>Although minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to the lumbar spine for posterior fusion are increasingly being utilized, the comparative outcomes of MIS and open posterior lumbar fusion remain unclear.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>In this systematic review, we compared MIS and open transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF), specifically with respect to (1) surgical end points (including blood loss, surgical time, and fluoroscopy time), (2) clinical ou ...[more]

PMID: 24464507

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the treatment of choice for lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. The procedure can be performed through a traditional open approach (O-TLIF) or through minimally invasive techniques (MI-TLIF). Spinal surgeries in obese patients can pose risks, including increased rates of infection and thromboembolic events.Questions/purposesWe sought to systematically review the literature on the differences between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF in the obese patient in terms of complication rate, functional outcomes, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.MethodsWe used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to systematically search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published through February 2019 and identified those comparing the outcomes of O-TLIF and MI-TLIF in obese patients. The primary outcome was complication rate (total, infections, dural tears); secondary outcomes were blood loss, length of hospital stay, and functional scores. Two authors independently reviewed the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.ResultsIn the sample of 430 patients, the average age was 53.5 years, there were 153 men and 203 women, and the average body mass index was 33.6. Complications were significantly higher in O-TLIF than in MI-TLIF (OR = 0.420 [95% CI: 0.199, 0.887]; I 2 = 45.20%). No difference was detected between the two groups for visual analog scale back pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores between the pre-operative and last follow-up visits (SMD = -0.034 [95% CI -0.695, 0.627]; I 2 = 62.14% and SMD = 0.617 [95% CI: -1.082, 2.316]; I 2 = 25%, respectively). Blood loss was significantly lower in MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF (SMD = -426.736 [95% CI: -490.720, -362.752]; I 2 = 70.53%), as was the duration of hospital stay (SMD = -1.079 [95% CI: -1.591, -0.208]; I 2 = 84.3%).ConclusionMI-TLIF has equivalent efficacy to O-TLIF in obese patients at long-term follow-up. In addition, complication rate, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were lower in MI-TLIF than in O-TLIF.

Project description:PurposeConventional thyroidectomy has been standard of care for surgical thyroid nodules. For cosmetic purposes different minimally invasive and remote-access surgical approaches have been developed. At present, the most used robotic and endoscopic thyroidectomy approaches are minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT), bilateral axillo-breast approach endoscopic thyroidectomy (BABA-ET), bilateral axillo-breast approach robotic thyroidectomy (BABA-RT), transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy via vestibular approach (TOETVA), retro-auricular endoscopic thyroidectomy (RA-ET), retro-auricular robotic thyroidectomy (RA-RT), gasless transaxillary endoscopic thyroidectomy (GTET) and robot assisted transaxillary surgery (RATS). The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate whether minimally invasive techniques are not inferior to conventional thyroidectomy.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase and Web of Science to identify original articles investigating operating time, length of hospital stay and complication rates regarding recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypocalcemia, of the different minimally invasive techniques.ResultsOut of 569 identified manuscripts, 98 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective in nature. The results of the systematic review varied. Thirty-one articles were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the standard of care, the meta-analysis showed no significant difference in length of hospital stay, except a longer stay after BABA-ET. No significant difference in incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypocalcemia was seen. As expected, operating time was significantly longer for most minimally invasive techniques.ConclusionsThis is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the eight most commonly used minimally invasive thyroid surgeries individually with standard of care. It can be concluded that minimally invasive techniques do not lead to more complications or longer hospital stay and are, therefore, not inferior to conventional thyroidectomy.

Project description:Degenerative deformities of the spine have traditionally been treated with extensive open surgeries. However, these open procedures are associated with a high degree of surgical morbidity. In this study, we explore whether clinical improvement in patients with spinal deformities can be achieved using a new minimally invasive surgery (MIS) called oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLLIF). OLLIF is a MIS single surgeon procedure in which the disc is approached through Kambin's triangle. OLLIF can achieve correction of spinal deformities through careful cage placement.The purpose of this study is to establish the safety and efficacy of using OLLIF to correct spinal deformities and to collect early outcome data. Collected data includes perioperative outcomes, patient reported outcomes, and radiographic outcomes.This study is a retrospective review of 37 OLLIF surgeries in 36 patients with symptomatic degenerative spinal deformity. Collected perioperative data included surgery time, blood loss, and hospital stay. Follow-up was conducted at least 150 days post surgery. We recorded complications and patient reported outcomes such as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and pain scale. Imaging was conducted pre- and post-surgery. Fusion rates and changes in Cobb angle were also measured.A total of 37 surgeries that treated 100 vertebral levels were performed. For two and three level procedures, respectively, the mean blood loss was 83 and 178 ml, the average surgery time was 74 and 158 minutes and the average hospital stay was 2.6 and 3.3 days. The patients ambulated within 24 hours in all but two cases. The patients reported pain improvements on the ten-point pain scale from 8.3 to 3.7 (p<0.001) and on the ODI from 53% to 32%. Cobb angles decreased from 16° to 9.3° (p<0.001), amounting to 2.5° of correction per level of surgery. Detailed imaging was reviewed by independent radiologists for 24 cases and 100% interbody fusion was achieved along with 71% right posterolateral and 74% left posterolateral fusion. There were three cases of mild nerve irritation/neuropraxia and no infections.OLLIF is a safe and effective MIS technique to correct adult degenerative scoliosis. Unlike alternative procedures, OLLIF is technically less complex than comparable procedures and can safely be used from the thoracolumbar junction to S1.

Dataset Information

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review.

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets