Wei Hu1, Jiandong Tang2, Xianpei Wu2, Li Zhang2, Baoyi Ke2. 1. Department Spine and Osteopathy Ward, Guilin Peoples' Hospital, No 12 Wenming road, Guilin, Guangxi, China, 540021. howie189@126.com. 2. Department Spine and Osteopathy Ward, Guilin Peoples' Hospital, No 12 Wenming road, Guilin, Guangxi, China, 540021.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare mTLIF vs. oTLIF with regard to peri-operative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss, fluoroscopic time, and the length of hospital stay. METHODS: The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant articles reporting patients undergoing TLIF, and a comparison between mTILF and oTLIF was performed. The database included patient demographic information, complications, operative time, fluoroscopic time, and the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in this systematic review. The total number of subjects included was 901, of which 455 underwent mTLIF (50 %) and 446 underwent oTLIF (50 %). The operating time for the mTLIF was ranged from 116 to 390 minutes, compared with 102 to 365 minutes for oTLIF, the operating time tended to be longer in the mTLIF group than the oTLIF group. The estimated blood loss was lower in the mTLIF group, ranging from 51 to 578 ml in mTLIF and 225 to 961 ml in oTLIF, respectively. Length of hospital stay was short for the mTLIF with a 2.3 to 10.6 days hospitalization compared to 2.9 to 14.6 days for oTLIF. However the fluoroscopic time was consistently higher in the mTLIF group with a 49 to 106 seconds of fluoroscopy compared to 16.4 to 44 seconds for oTLIF. The complications divided into technical complications and infection complications. The main technical and infection complications included dural tears, screw malposition, and wound infection. Systemic complications included pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and DVT. The numbers of patients with complication was 54 out of 455 (11.87 %) in the mTLIF, and 64 out of 446 (14.35 %) in the oTLIF. CONCLUSION: The review shows mTLIF offers several potential advantages in reducing blood loss and the length of hospital stay, especially lowering the complication rates for patients compared with oTLIF. However, it required much more operative time and radiation exposure. Class I evidence and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for further study.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare mTLIF vs. oTLIF with regard to peri-operative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss, fluoroscopic time, and the length of hospital stay. METHODS: The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant articles reporting patients undergoing TLIF, and a comparison between mTILF and oTLIF was performed. The database included patient demographic information, complications, operative time, fluoroscopic time, and the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in this systematic review. The total number of subjects included was 901, of which 455 underwent mTLIF (50 %) and 446 underwent oTLIF (50 %). The operating time for the mTLIF was ranged from 116 to 390 minutes, compared with 102 to 365 minutes for oTLIF, the operating time tended to be longer in the mTLIF group than the oTLIF group. The estimated blood loss was lower in the mTLIF group, ranging from 51 to 578 ml in mTLIF and 225 to 961 ml in oTLIF, respectively. Length of hospital stay was short for the mTLIF with a 2.3 to 10.6 days hospitalization compared to 2.9 to 14.6 days for oTLIF. However the fluoroscopic time was consistently higher in the mTLIF group with a 49 to 106 seconds of fluoroscopy compared to 16.4 to 44 seconds for oTLIF. The complications divided into technical complications and infection complications. The main technical and infection complications included dural tears, screw malposition, and wound infection. Systemic complications included pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and DVT. The numbers of patients with complication was 54 out of 455 (11.87 %) in the mTLIF, and 64 out of 446 (14.35 %) in the oTLIF. CONCLUSION: The review shows mTLIF offers several potential advantages in reducing blood loss and the length of hospital stay, especially lowering the complication rates for patients compared with oTLIF. However, it required much more operative time and radiation exposure. Class I evidence and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for further study.
Authors: S C Humphreys; S D Hodges; A G Patwardhan; J C Eck; R B Murphy; L A Covington Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Benjamin K Potter; Brett A Freedman; Eric G Verwiebe; Jordan M Hall; David W Polly; Timothy R Kuklo Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2005-08
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
Authors: Graham Seow-Hng Goh; You Wei Adriel Tay; Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Cheryl Gatot; Zhixing Marcus Ling; Poh Ling Fong; Reuben Chee Cheong Soh; Chang Ming Guo; Wai-Mun Yue; Seang-Beng Tan; John Li-Tat Chen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 4.755