Literature DB >> 36263335

The current status and surgical outcome of the minimally invasive techniques for lumbar interbody fusion in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ashutosh Kumar1, Jayesh Sardhara1, Prabhaker Mishra2, Vishwas Kapoor2, Anant Mehrotra1, Vandan Raiyani1, Mayank Singh1, Nishant Goyal3, Arvind G Kulkarni4, Umesh Srikantha5, Kamlesh Singh Bhaisora1, Kuntal Kanti Das1, Arun K Srivastava1, Sanjay Behari1.   

Abstract

Objective: The global shift of trends to minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases has become prominent in India for few decades. We aimed to assess the current status of MIS techniques for lumbar interbody fusion and their surgical outcomes in the Indian population. Materials and
Methods: A systematic review (following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines) was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar till November 2020. The primary (visual analog scale [VAS] and oswestry disability index [ODI] scores; intraoperative blood loss; duration of surgery; duration of hospital stay, and fusion rate) and secondary (wound-associated complications and dural tear/cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak) outcomes were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 software.
Results: A total of 15 studies comprising a total of 1318 patients were included for analysis. The pooled mean of follow-up duration was 26.64 ± 8.43 months (range 5.7-36.5 months). Degenerative spondylolisthesis of Myerding grade I/II was the most common indication, followed by lytic listhesis, herniated prolapsed disc, and lumbar canal stenosis. The calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD) suggested a significant decrease in postoperative ODI scores (SMD = 5.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.77-7.29; P < 0.01) and VAS scores (SMD = 6.50, 95% CI = 4.6-8.4; P < 0.01). The pooled mean blood loss, duration of postoperative hospital stay, duration of surgery, and fusion rate were 127.75 ± 52.79 mL, 4.78 ± 3.88 days, 178.59 ± 38.69 min, and 97.53% ± 2.69%, respectively. A total of 334 adverse events were recorded in 1318 patients, giving a complication rate of 25.34%. Conclusions: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the most common minimally invasive technique employed for lumbar interbody fusion in India, while oblique lumbar interbody fusion is in the initial stages. The surgical and outcome-related factors improved significantly after MIS LIF in the Indian population. Copyright:
© 2022 Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lumbar degenerative disease; lumbar interbody fusion; meta-analysis; minimally invasive spine surgery; minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; spondylolisthesis; systematic review

Year:  2022        PMID: 36263335      PMCID: PMC9574105          DOI: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_4_22

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine        ISSN: 0974-8237


  27 in total

Review 1.  Minimally invasive lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Kevin T Foley; Langston T Holly; James D Schwender
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The use of titanium non-penetrating clips to close the spinal dura.

Authors:  J Timothy; S J Hanna; N Furtado; M Shanmuganathan; A Tyagi
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.596

Review 3.  Complications associated with the initial learning curve of minimally invasive spine surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joseph A Sclafani; Choll W Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Authors:  Miranda Cumpston; Tianjing Li; Matthew J Page; Jacqueline Chandler; Vivian A Welch; Julian Pt Higgins; James Thomas
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-03

Review 5.  Guideline summary review: An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Paul G Matz; R J Meagher; Tim Lamer; William L Tontz; Thiru M Annaswamy; R Carter Cassidy; Charles H Cho; Paul Dougherty; John E Easa; Dennis E Enix; Bryan A Gunnoe; Jack Jallo; Terrence D Julien; Matthew B Maserati; Robert C Nucci; John E O'Toole; Karie Rosolowski; Jonathan N Sembrano; Alan T Villavicencio; Jens-Peter Witt
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 6.  Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nickalus R Khan; Aaron J Clark; Siang Liao Lee; Garrett T Venable; Nicholas B Rossi; Kevin T Foley
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.654

7.  Neuro-navigation assisted pre-psoas minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (MI-OLIF): New roads and impediments.

Authors:  Jayesh Sardhara; Suyash Singh; Anant Mehrotra; Kamlesh Singh Bhaisora; Kuntal Kanti Das; Arun Kumar Srivastava; Awadhesh K Jaiswal; Sanjay Behari
Journal:  Neurol India       Date:  2019 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.117

8.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Results of 23 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Amit Jhala; Damandeep Singh; Ms Mistry
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 1.251

9.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Perioperative Complications of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): 10 Years of Experience With MI-TLIF.

Authors:  Jwalant Patel; Vishal Kundnani; Saijyot Raut; Mohit Meena; Sameer Ruparel
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-08-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.