Dataset Information

Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The previous studies agree that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has better function outcomes, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, when compared to open-TLIF. However, there are no significance differences on operative time, complication, and reoperation rate between the two procedures. This could be from less relative literatures and lower grade evidence. The further meta-analysis is needed with more and higher grade evidences to compare the above two TLIF procedures.

Methods

Prospective and retrospective studies that compared open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP database (the literature search comprised Medical Subject Heading terms and key words or Emtree term). The retrieval time ranged from the date when the database was founded to January 2015. Pooled risk ratios (RR s) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the clinical outcomes and perioperative data.

Results

Twenty-four studies (n = 1967 patients) were included in this review (n = 951, open-TLIF, n = 1016, MIS-TLIF). MIS-TLIF was associated with a significant decrease in the visual analog score (VAS)-back pain score (WMD = -0.44; P = 0.001), Oswestry Disabilities Index (WMD = -1.57; P = 0.005), early ambulation (WMD = -1.77; P = 0.0001), less blood loss (WMD = -265.59; P < 0.00001), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.89; P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the fusion rate (RR = 0.99; P = 0.34), VAS-leg pain (WMD = -0.10; P = 0.26), complication rate (RR = 0.84; P = 0.35), operation time (WMD = -5.23; P = 0.82), or reoperation rate (RR = 0.73; P = 0.32).

Conclusions

MIS-TLIF resulted in a similar fusion rate with better functional outcome, less blood loss, shorter ambulation, and hospital stay; furthermore, it did not increase the complication or reoperation rate based on the existing evidence.

SUBMITTER: Xie L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4989430 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis.

Xie Lei L Wu Wen-Jian WJ Liang Yu Y

Chinese medical journal 20160801 16

<h4>Background</h4>The previous studies agree that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has better function outcomes, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, when compared to open-TLIF. However, there are no significance differences on operative time, complication, and reoperation rate between the two procedures. This could be from less relative literatures and lower grade evidence. The further meta-analysis is needed with more and higher grade evidences to co ...[more]

PMID: 27503024

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (modified MIS-TLIF) versus conventional TLIF in the lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.Materials and methodsForty patients with 1-level lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. Perioperative indexes including operation time, intraoperative bleeding, bed rest time, time of hospitalisation stay and the accuracy rate of screw placement were analysed. Preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed.ResultsThe operation time in the modified MIS-TLIF group was longer than the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss in the modified MIS-TLIF group was less than the comparative group (p < 0.05). The average bed rest time and hospitalisation stay in the modified MIS-TLIF group was shorter than conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). The screw placement in the modified MIS-TLIF group was more precisely than that in the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the improvement of VAS and ODI in the modified MIS-TLIF group were lower than that in the conventional TLIF group 1 and 6 months after operation (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the VAS and ODI score between the two group at the last follow-up (p > 0.05).ConclusionNavigation and microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree I or II) with potential advantages including less injury, less blood loss, higher screw accuracy and faster recovery after operation.The translational potential of this articleCompared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has a huge advantage in surgery treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Hence, this article provided a better surgery method to deal with lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, and robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion will be adopted in the future.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.ResultsSeven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).ConclusionsThe above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42020201903 .

Project description:Background:Comparison of single-level open and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (O-TLIF and MI-TLIF) of a single surgeon and presentation of his MI-TLIF learning curve in a retrospective observational cohort study. Methods:27 MI-TLIF and 31 O-TLIF patients, performed between 03/01/2013 and 03/31/2018, were compared regarding the operative time, blood loss, blood transfusion frequency, postoperative length of stay (LOS), and adverse events. An overall comparison of pre- and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) results and Visual Analog Score (VAS) results of low back and leg pain was performed in the case of the two techniques. For a learning curve presentation, the MI-TLIF cases were compared and the optimal operative time was determined. Results:The gender ratio and age did not differ in the groups. Operative time showed no difference (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (p=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (. Conclusions:Similar operative time and postoperative quality of life improvement can be achieved by MI-TLIF procedure as with O-TLIF, and additionally LOS and blood loss can be reduced. When comparing parameters, MI-TLIF can be an alternative option for O-TLIF with a similar complication profile. The learning curve of MI-TLIF can be steep, although it depends on the circumstances.

Project description:PurposeMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is increasingly popular for the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar disc diseases. The constructs intended for segmental stability are varied in MI-TLIF. We adopted finite element (FE) analysis to compare the stability after different construct fixations using interbody cage with posterior pedicle screw-rod or pedicle screw-plate instrumentation system.MethodsA L3-S1 FE model was modified to simulate decompression and fusion at L4-L5 segment. Fixation modes included unilateral plate (UP), unilateral rod (UR), bilateral plate (BP), bilateral rod (BR) and UP+UR fixation. The inferior surface of the S1 vertebra remained immobilized throughout the load simulation, and a bending moment of 7.5 Nm with 400N pre-load was applied on the L3 vertebra to recreate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Range of motion (ROM) and Von Mises stress were evaluated for intact and instrumentation models in all loading planes.ResultsAll reconstructive conditions displayed decreased motion at L4-L5. The pedicle screw-plate system offered equal ROM to pedicle screw-rod system in unilateral or bilateral fixation modes respectively. Pedicle screw stresses for plate system were 2.2 times greater than those for rod system in left lateral bending under unilateral fixation. Stresses for plate were 3.1 times greater than those for rod in right axial rotation under bilateral fixation. Stresses on intervertebral graft for plate system were similar to rod system in unilateral and bilateral fixation modes respectively. Increased ROM and posterior instrumentation stresses were observed in all loading modes with unilateral fixation compared with bilateral fixation in both systems.ConclusionsTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion augmentation with pedicle screw-plate system fixation increases fusion construct stability equally to the pedicle screw-rod system. Increased posterior instrumentation stresses are observed in all loading modes with plate fixation, and bilateral fixation could reduce stress concentration.

Dataset Information

Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets