Literature DB >> 23572345

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence.

Nai-Feng Tian1, Yao-Sen Wu, Xiao-Lei Zhang, Hua-Zi Xu, Yong-Long Chi, Fang-Min Mao.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This is a meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing the clinical and radiological efficacy of minimally invasive (MI) and conventional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (open-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar diseases.
METHODS: A literature search of the MEDLINE database identified 11 studies that met our inclusion criteria. A total of 785 patients were examined. Pooled estimates of clinical and radiological outcomes, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
RESULTS: The pooled data revealed that MI-TLIF was associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and a trend of better functional outcomes when compared with open-TLIF. However, MI-TLIF significantly increased the intraoperative X-ray exposure. Both techniques had similar operative time, complication rate, and re-operation rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, MI-TLIF for degenerative lumbar diseases might lead to better patient-based outcomes. MI-TLIF would be a promising procedure, but extra efforts are needed to reduce its intraoperative radiation exposure. More randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these two surgical options.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23572345      PMCID: PMC3731475          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2747-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  25 in total

1.  Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

Authors:  Karem Slim; Emile Nini; Damien Forestier; Fabrice Kwiatkowski; Yves Panis; Jacques Chipponi
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.872

Review 2.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes.

Authors:  Isaac O Karikari; Robert E Isaacs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience.

Authors:  Constantin Schizas; Nicolas Tzinieris; Elefterios Tsiridis; Victor Kosmopoulos
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-11-21       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 4.  Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions.

Authors:  Thorsten Tjardes; Sven Shafizadeh; Dieter Rixen; Thomas Paffrath; Bertil Bouillon; Eva S Steinhausen; Holger Baethis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-09-11       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Jae Chul Lee; Hae-Dong Jang; Byung-Joon Shin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Kong Hwee Lee; Wai Mun Yue; William Yeo; Henry Soeharno; Seang Beng Tan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2.

Authors:  Jian Wang; Yue Zhou; Zheng Feng Zhang; Chang Qing Li; Wen Jie Zheng; Jie Liu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-22       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy to decrease radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery.

Authors:  Choll W Kim; Yu-Po Lee; William Taylor; Ahmet Oygar; Woo Kyung Kim
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 4.166

9.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Chan Wearn Benedict Peng; Wai Mun Yue; Seng Yew Poh; William Yeo; Seang Beng Tan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability.

Authors:  Kai-Michael Scheufler; Hildegard Dohmen; Vassilios I Vougioukas
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  46 in total

1.  Percutaneous posterior transdiscal oblique screw fixation with lateral interbody fusion: a radiological and cadaveric study.

Authors:  Ai-Min Wu; Wen-Fei Ni; Zhen-Xuan Shao; Xiang-Jie Kong; Nai-Feng Tian; Yi-Xing Huang; Zhong-Ke Lin; Hua-Zi Xu; Yong-Long Chi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Jarred A Hogan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Feng Li et al. entitled "Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence" by Nai-Feng Tian, Yao-Sen Wu, Xiao-Lei Zhang, Hua-Zi Xu, Yong-Long Chi, Fang-Min Mao (2013). Eur Spine J, doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2747-z.

Authors:  Nai-Feng Tian; Fang-Min Mao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-18       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Comment on Tian et al.: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence.

Authors:  Feng Li; Hongjun Huo; Xuejun Yang; Yulong Xiao; Wenhua Xing; Hong Xia
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with direct lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological results.

Authors:  Young Seok Lee; Young Baeg Kim; Seung Won Park; Chan Chung
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2014-12-31

Review 6.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Prashanth J Rao; Andrew C Kam; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Performance evaluation of MIND demons deformable registration of MR and CT images in spinal interventions.

Authors:  S Reaungamornrat; T De Silva; A Uneri; J Goerres; M Jacobson; M Ketcha; S Vogt; G Kleinszig; A J Khanna; J-P Wolinsky; J L Prince; J H Siewerdsen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of osteoconductive and osteoinductive bone graft substitutes.

Authors:  Mark Kurd; Sarah Cohick; Andrew Park; Kasra Ahmadinia; Joseph Lee; Howard An
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Short-Term Results of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Pedicle Screw with Cortical Bone Trajectory Compared with Conventional Trajectory.

Authors:  Yuji Kasukawa; Naohisa Miyakoshi; Michio Hongo; Yoshinori Ishikawa; Daisuke Kudo; Yoichi Shimada
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2015-06-08

Review 10.  Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Gursukhman S Sidhu; Erik Henkelman; Alexander R Vaccaro; Todd J Albert; Alan Hilibrand; D Greg Anderson; Jeffrey A Rihn
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.