Kevin Phan1, Ya Ruth Huo2, Jarred A Hogan3, Joshua Xu4, Alexander Dunn5, Samuel K Cho6, Ralph J Mobbs3, Patrick McKenna7, Trichy Rajagopal7, Farhaan Altaf8. 1. NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia;; Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia ; 3. NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia;; Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia; 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia ; 5. NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia ; 6. Leni & Peter W May Department of Orthopedics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA ; 7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK ; 8. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis have been increasingly implemented. However, little data exists regarding the safety and complication profiles of minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) for adult degenerative scoliosis. This study aimed to greater understand different minimally invasive surgical approaches for adult degenerative scoliosis with respect to clinical outcomes, changes in radiographic measurements, and complication profiles via meta-analytical techniques. METHODS: A systematic search of six databases from inception to September 2015 was performed by two independent reviewers. Relevant studies were those that described the safety and/or effectiveness of minimally invasive anterior or lateral LIF (LLIF), transforaminal LIF (TLIF), and decompression only. Meta-analytical techniques and meta-regression were used to pool overall rates, and compare the different techniques. There was no financial funding or conflict of interest. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies (1,228 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Total pooled fusion rate was 95.9% (95% CI: 92.7-98.2%) for the anterior/lateral approach. The pooled construct or hardware-related complications was 4.3%, and was similar among anterior/lateral (4.4%) and posterior (5.2%) techniques. The total pooled pseudoarthrosis rate was 4.3% for the lateral approach. The overall pooled rate of motor deficit was 2.7% (95% CI: 1.7-4.0%). Subgroup meta-regression demonstrated that the anterior/lateral approach had the highest rate of motor deficits (3.6% LLIF vs. 0.7% TLIF vs. 0.5% decompression, P=0.004). The overall pooled rate of sensory deficit was 2.4%, highest for the anterior/lateral technique (3.3%) compared to TLIF (0.7%) and decompression (0.5%). The infection rate, dural tears/CSF leak, cardiac and pulmonary events were similar among the techniques, with a pooled value of 2.6%, 3.9%, 1.7%, and 1.4%, respectively. Similarly satisfactory radiological outcomes were obtained amongst the different approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive spine technologies may be used for the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative scoliosis with acceptable complication rates, functional and radiological outcome. Future studies, specifically multi-centered longitudinal, examining the adequacy of minimally invasive spine surgery is warranted to compare long-term outcomes with the traditional procedure.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis have been increasingly implemented. However, little data exists regarding the safety and complication profiles of minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) for adult degenerative scoliosis. This study aimed to greater understand different minimally invasive surgical approaches for adult degenerative scoliosis with respect to clinical outcomes, changes in radiographic measurements, and complication profiles via meta-analytical techniques. METHODS: A systematic search of six databases from inception to September 2015 was performed by two independent reviewers. Relevant studies were those that described the safety and/or effectiveness of minimally invasive anterior or lateral LIF (LLIF), transforaminal LIF (TLIF), and decompression only. Meta-analytical techniques and meta-regression were used to pool overall rates, and compare the different techniques. There was no financial funding or conflict of interest. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies (1,228 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Total pooled fusion rate was 95.9% (95% CI: 92.7-98.2%) for the anterior/lateral approach. The pooled construct or hardware-related complications was 4.3%, and was similar among anterior/lateral (4.4%) and posterior (5.2%) techniques. The total pooled pseudoarthrosis rate was 4.3% for the lateral approach. The overall pooled rate of motor deficit was 2.7% (95% CI: 1.7-4.0%). Subgroup meta-regression demonstrated that the anterior/lateral approach had the highest rate of motor deficits (3.6% LLIF vs. 0.7% TLIF vs. 0.5% decompression, P=0.004). The overall pooled rate of sensory deficit was 2.4%, highest for the anterior/lateral technique (3.3%) compared to TLIF (0.7%) and decompression (0.5%). The infection rate, dural tears/CSF leak, cardiac and pulmonary events were similar among the techniques, with a pooled value of 2.6%, 3.9%, 1.7%, and 1.4%, respectively. Similarly satisfactory radiological outcomes were obtained amongst the different approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive spine technologies may be used for the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative scoliosis with acceptable complication rates, functional and radiological outcome. Future studies, specifically multi-centered longitudinal, examining the adequacy of minimally invasive spine surgery is warranted to compare long-term outcomes with the traditional procedure.
Authors: Steven D Glassman; Christopher L Hamill; Keith H Bridwell; Frank J Schwab; John R Dimar; Thomas G Lowe Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Frank J Schwab; Virginie Lafage; Jean-Pierre Farcy; Keith H Bridwell; Stephen Glassman; Michael R Shainline Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jotham C Manwaring; Konrad Bach; Amir A Ahmadian; Armen R Deukmedjian; Donald A Smith; Juan S Uribe Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2014-03-14
Authors: Rajiv Saigal; Gregory M Mundis; Robert Eastlack; Juan S Uribe; Frank M Phillips; Behrooz A Akbarnia Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 3.468