Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2017.15.027

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) for spondylolisthesis has been introduced to reduce muscle trauma, minimize blood loss, and achieve earlier rehabilitation. However, there is a lack of evidence-based medicine concerning the therapeutic efficacy of Mis-TLIF versus open TLIF for spondylolisthesis.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Mis-TLIF versus open TLIF for spondylolisthesis.

METHODS: WanFang, CNKI, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the keywords of “spondylolisthesis, minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion, open transforaminal interbody fusion” in English and Chinese, respectively. The quality evaluation and data extraction of the included literatures were conducted by two authors independently. A meta-analysis was performed on RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Ten literatures were included, including 7 retrospective and 3 randomized controlled trials; 963 cases were enrolled (489 cases of Mis-TLIF, 474 cases of open TLIF). (1) Meta-analysis results showed that there were no significant differences in the operation time, postoperative complication rate, and fusion rate at the last follow-up between two groups, suggesting that the two methods expose analogical effects on the pain relief and functional recovery. (2) There were significant differences in the intraoperative blood loss and radiological times between two methods. (3) To conclude, Mis-TLIF holds similar operation time, incidence of complications and functional recovery with open TLIF, accompanied by minimized trauma, and reduced intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, which is considered as a safe and effective surgical method.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

Key words: Spondylolysis, Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive, Spinal Fusion, Meta-Analysis, Tissue Engineering

CLC Number:

R318

Yan Bing-shan, Xu Bao-shan, Liu Yue, Yang Qiang. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis [J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2017, 21(15): 2453-2460.

Figures/Tables 5

References

[1] Fan SW,Zhao X.Correlative problem of lumbar instability and lumbar spondylolisthesis.Zhongguo Gu Shang.2010;23(4): 241-244.

[2] Harms J,Rolinger H.A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl).Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982;120(3):343-347.

[3] Foley KT,Lefkowitz M A.Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery.Clin Neurosurg.2002;49:499-517.

[4] Isaacs RE,Podichetty VK,Santiago P,et al.Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation.J Neurosurg Spine.2005;3(2): 98-105.

[5] Adogwa O,Parker S L,Bydon A,et al.Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life.J Spinal Disord Tech.2011;24(8):479-484.

[6] Parker S L,Adogwa O,Bydon A,et al.Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years.World Neurosurg.2012;78(1-2):178-184.

[7] Saetia K,Phankhongsab A,Kuansongtham V,et al.Comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.J Med Assoc Thai.2013;96(1):41-46.

[8] Sulaiman WA,Singh M.Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis.Ochsner J.2014,14(1): 32-37.

[9] Wang J,Zhou Y,Zhang Z F,et al.Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2.Eur Spine J.2010;19(10):1780-1784.

[10] 刘家瑞,朱肖奇,程小芸,等.Quadrant减压sextant内固定治疗退变性腰椎失稳症与开放TILF临床对比分析[J].实用临床医药杂志,2012,16(13):37-40.

[11] 王建,周跃,张正丰,等.微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床研究[J].中华外科杂志,2011,49(12):1076-1080.

[12] 徐晖,肖立军,陈文贵.微创经椎间孔椎体间融合术与开放手术治疗腰椎滑脱症临床分析[J].河北医学,2013,19(1):48-51.

[13] 杨显泉,宋光虎.微创TLIF治疗Ⅰ或Ⅱ度单节段退行性腰椎滑脱症的效果研究[J].微创医学,2015,10(4):468-470.

[14] 张海龙,顾昕,贺石生,等.微创经椎间孔椎体间融合术与开放手术治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效比较[J].中华骨科杂志,2011,31(10): 1088-1092.

[15] Tuttle J,Shakir A,Choudhri HF.Paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Technical note and preliminary report on 47 cases.Neurosurg Focus.2006;20(3):E5.

[16] Kawaguchi Y,Matsui H,Tsuji H.Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis.Spine (Phila Pa 1976).1996;21(8):941-944.

[17] Luo Z,Rao H,Huang D,et al.Comparison of minimally invasive using a tubular retraction system versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi.2015; 95(33):2681-2685.

[18] Phan K,Rao PJ,Kam A C,et al.Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur Spine J.2015;24(5):1017-1030.

[19] Schizas C,Tzinieris N,Tsiridis E,et al.Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience.Int Orthop.2009;33(6): 1683-1688.

[20] Lau D,Lee JG,Han SJ,et al.Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).J Clin Neurosci.2011;18(5):624-627.

[21] Majid K,Fischgrund JS.Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: trends in management.J Am Acad Orthop Surg.2008;16(4):208-215.