Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis
- PDF / 4,907,348 Bytes
- 21 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 32 Downloads / 191 Views
(2019) 14:229
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Open Access
Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis Ahmed Hammad*, André Wirries, Ardavan Ardeshiri, Olexandr Nikiforov and Florian Geiger
Abstract Study design: This study is a comparative, literature review. Objective: The aim of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review and a meta-analysis. Summary of background data: Lumbar interbody fusion is a well-established surgical procedure for treating several spinal disorders. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was initially introduced in the early 1980s. To reduce approach-related morbidity associated with traditional open TLIF (OTLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MITLIF) was developed. We aimed to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review. Methods: We searched the online database PubMed (2005–2017), which yielded an initial 194 studies. We first searched the articles’ abstracts. Based on our inclusion criteria, we excluded 162 studies and included 32 studies: 18 prospective, 13 retrospective, and a single randomized controlled trial. Operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, radiation exposure time, complication rate, and pain scores (visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index) for both techniques were recorded and presented as means. We then performed a meta-analysis. Results: The meta-analysis for all outcomes showed reduced blood loss (P < 0.00001) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001) for MITLIF compared with OTLIF, but with increased radiation exposure time with MITLIF (P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in operative time between techniques (P = 0.78). The complication rate was lower with MITLIF (11.3%) vs. OTLIF (14.2%), but not statistically significantly different (P = 0.05). No significant differences were found in visual analogue scores (back and leg) and Oswestry Disability Index scores between techniques, at the final follow-up. Conclusion: MITLIF and OTLIF provide equivalent long-term clinical outcomes. MITLIF had less tissue injury, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. MITLIF is also a safe alternative in obese patients and, in experienced hands, can also be used safely in select cases of spondylodiscitis even with epidural abscess. MITLIF is also a cost-saving procedure associated with reduced hospital and social costs. Long-term studies are required to better evaluate controversial items such as operative time. Keywords: Lumbar, Interbody fusion, Transforaminal, Open, Minimally invasive
* Correspondence: [email protected] Spine Centre, Hessing Foundation, Hessingstrasse 17, 86199 Augsburg, Germany © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author
Data Loading...
