Literature DB >> 26716097

Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review.

Branko Skovrlj1, Patrick Belton1, Hekmat Zarzour1, Sheeraz A Qureshi1.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare minimally invasive (MIS) and open techniques for MIS lumbar laminectomy, direct lateral and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgeries with respect to length of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), neurologic complications, perioperative transfusion, postoperative pain, postoperative narcotic use, and length of stay (LOS).
METHODS: A systematic review of previously published studies accessible through PubMed was performed. Only articles in English journals or published with English language translations were included. Level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed. Statistical data was calculated with analysis of variance with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 11 pertinent laminectomy studies, 20 direct lateral studies, and 27 TLIF studies were found. For laminectomy, MIS techniques resulted in a significantly longer length of surgery (177.5 min vs 129.0 min, P = 0.04), shorter LOS (4.3 d vs 5.3 d, P = 0.01) and less perioperative pain (visual analog scale: 16 ± 17 vs 34 ± 31, P = 0.04). There is evidence of decreased narcotic use for MIS patients (postoperative intravenous morphine use: 9.3 mg vs 42.8 mg), however this difference is of unknown significance. Direct lateral approaches have insufficient comparative data to establish relative perioperative outcomes. MIS TLIF had superior EBL (352 mL vs 580 mL, P < 0.0001) and LOS (7.7 d vs 10.4 d, P < 0.0001) and limited data to suggest lower perioperative pain.
CONCLUSION: Based on perioperative outcomes data, MIS approach is superior to open approach for TLIF. For laminectomy, MIS and open approaches can be chosen based on surgeon preference. For lateral approaches, there is insufficient evidence to find non-inferior perioperative outcomes at this time.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Estimated blood loss; Length of stay; Length of surgery; Lumbar spine; Minimally invasive; Narcotic use; Neurologic complications; Perioperative outcomes; Postoperative pain; Spine surgery; Transfusion

Year:  2015        PMID: 26716097      PMCID: PMC4686448          DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i11.996

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Orthop        ISSN: 2218-5836


  68 in total

1.  ENZYME DISSOLUTION OF THE NUCLEUS PULPOSUS IN HUMANS.

Authors:  L SMITH
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1964-01-11       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Bilateral operation of lumbar degenerative central spinal stenosis in full-endoscopic interlaminar technique with unilateral approach: prospective 2-year results of 74 patients.

Authors:  Martin Komp; Patrick Hahn; Harry Merk; Georgios Godolias; Sebastian Ruetten
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2011-07

3.  Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases.

Authors:  W Blake Rodgers; Edward J Gerber; Jamie Patterson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Lumbar fusion in octogenarians: the promise of minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  William Blake Rodgers; Edward J Gerber; Jody A Rodgers
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  A radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly decompress the neural elements.

Authors:  Leonardo Oliveira; Luis Marchi; Etevaldo Coutinho; Luiz Pimenta
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  An extreme lateral access for the surgery of lumbar disc herniations inside the spinal canal using the full-endoscopic uniportal transforaminal approach-technique and prospective results of 463 patients.

Authors:  Sebastian Ruetten; Martin Komp; Georgios Godolias
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference?

Authors:  Jason S Cheng; Priscilla Park; Hai Le; Lori Reisner; Dean Chou; Praveen V Mummaneni
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.047

8.  Tubular microsurgery for lumbar discectomies and laminectomies in obese patients: operative results and outcome.

Authors:  Andre Tomasino; Karishma Parikh; Jeremy Steinberger; Jared Knopman; John Boockvar; Roger Härtl
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Postoperative Complications Within the First Year After Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion: Experience of the First 108 Patients.

Authors:  Bennett D Grimm; Daniel P Leas; Steven C Poletti; Donald R Johnson
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.876

10.  Stand-alone lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Luis Marchi; Nitamar Abdala; Leonardo Oliveira; Rodrigo Amaral; Etevaldo Coutinho; Luiz Pimenta
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-04-01
View more
  10 in total

1.  Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Single Oblique PEEK Cage and Posterior Supplemental Fixation.

Authors:  Álvaro Dowling; Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

2.  Spinal navigation for minimally invasive thoracic and lumbosacral spine fixation: implications for radiation exposure, operative time, and accuracy of pedicle screw placement.

Authors:  T Tajsic; K Patel; R Farmer; R J Mannion; R A Trivedi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Simultaneous navigated cervico-thoracic and thoraco-lumbar fixation.

Authors:  Krunal Patel; Tamara Tajsic; Karol P Budohoski; Mathew R Guilfoyle; Rikin A Trivedi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Complications associated with L4-5 anterior retroperitoneal trans-psoas interbody fusion: a single institution series.

Authors:  Saeed S Sadrameli; Vitaliy Davidov; Meng Huang; Jonathan J Lee; Srivathsan Ramesh; Jaime R Guerrero; Marcus S Wong; Zain Boghani; Adriana Ordonez; Sean M Barber; Todd W Trask; Andrew C Roeser; Paul J Holman
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-09

5.  Facet Violation With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement: Impact of 3D Navigation and Facet Orientation.

Authors:  Ting Cong; Ahilan Sivaganesan; Christopher M Mikhail; Avani S Vaishnav; James Dowdell; Joseph Barbera; Hiroshi Kumagai; Jonathan Markowitz; Evan Sheha; Sheeraz A Qureshi
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2021-07-03

Review 6.  Beyond Placement of Pedicle Screws - New Applications for Robotics in Spine Surgery: A Multi-Surgeon, Single-Institution Experience.

Authors:  Troy Q Tabarestani; David Sykes; Kelly R Murphy; Timothy Y Wang; Christopher I Shaffrey; C Rory Goodwin; Phillip Horne; Khoi D Than; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-06-16

7.  Percutaneous Lumbar Interbody Fusion With an Expandable Titanium Cage Through Kambin's Triangle: A Case Series With Initial Clinical and Radiographic Results.

Authors:  Timothy Y Wang; Vikram A Mehta; Mostafa Gabr; Eric W Sankey; Alexia Bwensa; C Rory Goodwin; Isaac O Karikari; John H Chi; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

Review 8.  Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy/Discectomy, Transforaminal Lumbar, and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Allicia O Imada; Tridu R Huynh; Doniel Drazin
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-07-18

9.  Risk factors predicting less favorable outcomes in endoscopic lumbar discectomies.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Katzell
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-01

10.  Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in obese patients: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qingsong Xie; Jing Zhang; Feng Lu; Hao Wu; Zan Chen; Fengzeng Jian
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 2.362

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.