Dataset Information

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Minimally invasive surgery for discectomy may accelerate recovery and reduce pain, but it also requires technical expertise and is associated with increased risks. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effects of minimally invasive versus open surgery on functional outcomes, pain, complications and reoperations among patients undergoing cervical or lumbar discectomy.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for reports of relevant randomized controlled trials published to Jan. 12, 2014. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of potential reports and the risk of bias of included trials. We analyzed functional outcomes and pain using standardized mean differences (SMDs) that were weighted and pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

We included 4 trials in the cervical discectomy group (n = 431) and 10 in the lumbar discectomy group (n = 1159). Evidence overall was of low to moderate quality. We found that minimally invasive surgery did not improve long-term function (cervical: SMD 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.09 to 0.31; lumbar: SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.20) or reduce long-term extremity pain (cervical: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.10; lumbar: SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.32) compared with open surgery. The evidence suggested overall higher rates of nerve-root injury (risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.84), incidental durotomy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.05) and reoperation (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.26) with minimally invasive surgery than with open surgery. Infections were more common with open surgery than with minimally invasive surgery (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.38), although the difference was not statistically significant.

Interpretation

Current evidence does not support the routine use of minimally invasive surgery for cervical or lumbar discectomy. Well-designed trials are needed given the lack of high-quality evidence.

SUBMITTER: Evaniew N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4251505 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Evaniew Nathan N Khan Moin M Drew Brian B Kwok Desmond D Bhandari Mohit M Ghert Michelle M

CMAJ open 20141001 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Minimally invasive surgery for discectomy may accelerate recovery and reduce pain, but it also requires technical expertise and is associated with increased risks. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effects of minimally invasive versus open surgery on functional outcomes, pain, complications and reoperations among patients undergoing cervical or lumbar discectomy.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for reports of relevant randomize ...[more]

PMID: 25485257

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWidespread implementation of the minimally invasive technique in pancreatic surgery has proven to be challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) pancreatic surgery with open pancreatic surgery using data obtained from RCTs.MethodsA literature search was done using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Web of Science; all available RCTs comparing minimally invasive pancreatic surgery and open pancreatic surgery in adults requiring elective distal pancreatectomy or partial pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Outcomes were mortality rate, general and pancreatic surgery specific morbidity rate, and length of hospital stay.ResultsSix RCTs with 984 patients were included; 99.0 per cent (486) of minimally invasive procedures were performed laparoscopically and 1.0 per cent (five) robotically. In minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, length of hospital stay (-1.3 days, -2 to -0.5, P = 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (-137 ml, -182 to -92, P < 0.001) were reduced. In the subgroup analysis, reduction in length of hospital stay was only present for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (-2 days, -2.3 to -1.7, P < 0.001). A minimally invasive approach showed reductions in surgical site infections (OR 0.4, 0.1 to 0.96, P = 0.040) and intraoperative blood loss (-131 ml, -173 to -89, P < 0.001) with a 75 min longer duration of surgery (42 to 108 min, P < 0.001) only in partial pancreatoduodenectomy. No significant differences were found with regards to mortality rate and postoperative complications.ConclusionThis meta-analysis presents level 1 evidence of reduced length of hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery compared with open pancreatic surgery. Morbidity rate and mortality rate were comparable, but longer duration of surgery in minimally invasive partial pancreatoduodenectomy hints that this technique in partial pancreatoduodenectomy is technically more challenging than in distal pancreatectomy.

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:IntroductionPatients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis are frequently treated with nerve root decompression, in addition to pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion. Minimally invasive approaches are gaining attention in recent years, although there is no clear evidence supporting the proclamation of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) being better than open surgery. We present the design of the MISOS (Minimal Invasive Surgery versus Open Surgery) trial on the effectiveness of MISS versus open surgery in patients with degenerative or spondylolytic spondylolisthesis.Methods and analysisAll patients (age 18-75 years) with neurogenic claudication or radicular leg pain based on low-grade degenerative or spondylolytic spondylolisthesis with persistent complaints for at least 3 months are eligible. Patients will be randomised into mini-open decompression with bilateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (MISS), or conventional surgery with decompression and instrumented fusion with pedicle screws and bilateral interbody fusion (open). The primary outcome measure is Visual Analogue Scale of self-reported low back pain. Secondary outcome measures include improvement of leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, patients' perceived recovery, quality of life, resumption of work, complications, blood loss, length of hospital stay, incidence of reoperations and documentation of fusion. This study is designed as a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Based on a 20?mm difference of low back pain score at 6 weeks (power of 90%, assuming 8% loss to follow-up), a total of 184 patients will be needed. All analyses will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board Southwest Holland in August 2014 (registration number NL 49044.098.14) and subsequently approved by the board of all participating hospitals. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNTR 4532, pre-results.

Project description:Background:Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) is regarded as a viable alternative option for upper lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, few studies have evaluated PETD for upper LDH, and no study has compared the advantages of endoscopic procedures versus conventional surgery. The present study was aimed at comparing the surgical outcome and safety of PETD versus conventional open lumbar discectomy in the treatment of upper LDH. Methods:Data from 42 patients treated for upper LDH from July 2015 to July 2018 were retrospectively analyzed, including 21 patients treated with PETD (PETD group) and 21 patients treated with conventional posterior lumbar discectomy (open group). The two groups were compared regarding demographic information, physical examination, radiological evaluations, and perioperative indicators. The clinical outcomes were assessed in accordance with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), and modified MacNab criteria. Results:The postoperative ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved in both groups compared with the preoperative baseline values (P < 0.001), and the satisfactory rate was 90.5% in both groups in accordance with the modified MacNab criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical outcomes and complication rate (P < 0.001), and the satisfactory rate was 90.5% in both groups in accordance with the modified MacNab criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical outcomes and complication rate (P < 0.001), and the satisfactory rate was 90.5% in both groups in accordance with the modified MacNab criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical outcomes and complication rate (. Conclusions:PETD has a similar outcome to the conventional surgical method for the treatment of upper LDH but provides the typical advantages of minimally invasive procedures such as reduced iatrogenic injury, minimal activity restrictions, and accelerated ambulation recovery postoperatively.

Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Dataset Information

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets