Literature DB >> 24688330

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis.

Wale A R Sulaiman1, Manish Singh1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the standard surgical treatment for patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis who do not respond to a 6-week course of conservative therapy. A number of morbidities are associated with the conventional open-TLIF method, so minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for TLIF (MIS-TLIF) have been introduced to reduce the trauma to paraspinal muscles and hasten postoperative recovery. Because providing cost-effective medical treatment is a core initiative of healthcare reforms, a comparison of open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF must include a cost-utility analysis in addition to an analysis of clinical effectiveness.
METHODS: We compared patient-reported clinical functional outcomes and hospital direct costs in age-matched patients treated surgically with either open-TLIF or MIS-TLIF. Patients were followed for at least 1 year, and patient scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) were analyzed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and ≥1 year postoperatively in the 2 treatment groups.
RESULTS: Compared to their preoperative scores, patients in both the open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF groups had significant improvements in the ODI and VAS scores at each follow-up point, but no significant difference in functional outcome occurred between the open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF groups (P=0.46). However, open-TLIF is significantly more costly compared to MIS-TLIF (P=0.0002).
CONCLUSION: MIS-TLIF is a more cost-effective treatment than open-TLIF for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and is equally effective as the conventional open-TLIF procedure, although further financial analysis-including an analysis of indirect costs-is needed to better understand the full benefit of MIS-TLIF.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Costs and cost analysis; outcome assessment; pain measurement; spinal fusion; spinal instrumentation; spondylolisthesis; surgical procedures–minimally invasive

Year:  2014        PMID: 24688330      PMCID: PMC3963049     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ochsner J        ISSN: 1524-5012


  23 in total

Review 1.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale.

Authors:  E J Gallagher; M Liebman; P E Bijur
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.721

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.  Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis.

Authors:  S L Parker; O Adogwa; T F Witham; O S Aaronson; J Cheng; M J McGirt
Journal:  Minim Invasive Neurosurg       Date:  2011-04-19

5.  Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity.

Authors:  Vivek A Mehta; Matthew J McGirt; Giannina L Garcés Ambrossi; Scott L Parker; Daniel M Sciubba; Ali Bydon; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Ziya L Gokaslan; Timothy F Witham
Journal:  Neurol Res       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 2.448

6.  The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.

Authors:  J Rantanen; M Hurme; B Falck; H Alaranta; F Nykvist; M Lehto; S Einola; H Kalimo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery.

Authors:  R Gejo; H Matsui; Y Kawaguchi; H Ishihara; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis.

Authors:  T S Whitecloud ; W W Roesch; J E Ricciardi
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2001-04

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.  Prevalence of spondylolysis and its relationship with low back pain in selected population.

Authors:  Sang-Bong Ko; Sang-Wook Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2011-02-15
View more
  25 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Recent publications by ochsner authors: october 2013 - march 2014.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

Review 3.  Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar decompressions and fusions.

Authors:  Ankur S Narain; Fady Y Hijji; Jonathan S Markowitz; Krishna T Kudaravalli; Kelly H Yom; Kern Singh
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

Review 4.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): A review of indications, technique, results and complications.

Authors:  Bhavuk Garg; Nishank Mehta
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-01-14

Review 5.  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

6.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable articulating interbody spacers significantly improves radiographic outcomes compared to static interbody spacers.

Authors:  Anthony J Russo; Steven A Schopler; Katelyn J Stetzner; Torrey Shirk
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-09

7.  Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Parameters in Open TLIF Versus MIS-TLIF in Single- or Double-Level Lumbar Surgeries.

Authors:  Hitesh N Modi; Utsab Shrestha
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-09-22

8.  Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery.

Authors:  Kelechi Eseonu; Uche Oduoza; Mohamed Monem; Mohamed Tahir
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-07-14

9.  Risk Factors for Medical and Surgical Complications After Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Ankur S Narain; James M Parrish; Nathaniel W Jenkins; Brittany E Haws; Benjamin Khechen; Kelly H Yom; Krishna T Kudaravalli; Jordan A Guntin; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-04-30

10.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Isthmic Versus Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Dustin H Massel; Benjamin C Mayo; Grant D Shifflett; Daniel D Bohl; Philip K Louie; Bryce A Basques; William W Long; Krishna D Modi; Fady Y Hijji; Ankur S Narain; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-04-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.