Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Neurosurgical Review
Published in: Neurosurgical Review 3/2018

01-07-2018 | Review

Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Gun Keorochana, Kitipong Setrkraising, Patarawan Woratanarat, Alisara Arirachakaran, Jatupon Kongtharvonskul

Published in: Neurosurgical Review | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

The surgical procedures used for arthrodesis in the lumbar spine for degenerative lumbar diseases remain controversial. This systematic review aims to assess and compare clinical outcomes along with the complications and fusion of each technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF)) for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to July 19, 2016 that reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg pain visual analog score (VAS), postoperative complications, and fusion of either technique. Fifty-eight studies were included for the analysis of MIS-TLIF; 40 studies were included for analysis of LLIF, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was included for comparison of MIS-TLIF to LLIF. Overall, there were 9506 patients (5728 in the MIS-TLIF group and 3778 in the LLIF group). Indirect meta-analysis, MIS-TLIF provided better postoperative back and leg pain (VAS), disabilities (ODI), and risk of having complications when compared to LLIF technique, but the fusion rate was not significantly different between the two techniques. However, direct meta-analysis between RCT study and pooled indirect meta-analysis of MIS-TLIF have better pain, disabilities, and complication but no statistically significant difference when compared to LLIF. In LLIF, the pooled mean ODI and VAS back pain were 2.91 (95% CI 2.49, 3.33) and 23.24 (95% CI 18.96, 27.51) in MIS approach whereas 3.14 (95% CI 2.29, 4.04) and 28.29 (95% CI 21.92, 34.67) in traditional approach. In terms of complications and fusion rate, there was no difference in both groups. In lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF had better ODI, VAS pain, and complication rate when compared to LLIF with direct and indirect meta-analysis methods. However, in terms of fusion rates, there were no differences between the two techniques.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Adogwa O, Carr K, Thompson P, Hoang K, Darlington T, Perez E et al (2014) A prospective, multi-institutional comparative effectiveness study of lumbar spine surgery in morbidly obese patients: does minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion result in superior outcomes? World Neurosurgery 83:860–866CrossRefPubMed
2.
Adogwa O, Carr K, Thompson P, Hoang K, Darlington T, Perez E et al (2015) A prospective, multi-institutional comparative effectiveness study of lumbar spine surgery in morbidly obese patients: does minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion result in superior outcomes? Biomed Res Int 83:860–866
3.
Ahmadian A, Bach K, Bolinger B, Malham GM, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS et al (2015) Stand-alone minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion: multicenter clinical outcomes. J Clin Neurosci 22:740–746CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ahmadian A, Verma S, Mundis GM, Jr., Oskouian RJ, Jr., Smith DA, Uribe JS: Minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas interbody fusion for L4-5 spondylolisthesis: clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 19:314–320, 2013
5.
Alimi M, Hofstetter CP, Cong GT, Tsiouris AJ, James AR, Paulo D et al (2014) Radiological and clinical outcomes following extreme lateral interbody fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 20:623–635CrossRefPubMed
6.
Cahill KS, Martinez JL, Wang MY, Vanni S, Levi AD (2012) Motor nerve injuries following the minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 17:227–231CrossRefPubMed
7.
Caputo AM, Michael KW, Chapman TM, Jr., Massey GM, Howes CR, Isaacs RE, et al.: Clinical outcomes of extreme lateral interbody fusion in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. ScientificWorldJournal 2012:680643, 2012
8.
Castellvi AE, Nienke TW, Marulanda GA, Murtagh RD, Santoni BG (2014) Indirect decompression of lumbar stenosis with transpsoas interbody cages and percutaneous posterior instrumentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1784–1791CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Castro C, Oliveira L, Amaral R, Marchi L, Pimenta L (2014) Is the lateral transpsoas approach feasible for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis? Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1776–1783CrossRefPubMed
10.
Cheng JS, Park P, Le H, Reisner L, Chou D, Mummaneni PV: Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference? Neurosurgical Focus 35, 2013
11.
Choi UY, Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS et al (2013) Unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 35:E11CrossRefPubMed
12.
Cloward RB: Spondylolisthesis: treatment by laminectomy and posterior interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res:74–82, 1981
13.
Cummock MD, Vanni S, Levi AD, Yu Y, Wang MY (2011) An analysis of postoperative thigh symptoms after minimally invasive transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15:11–18CrossRefPubMed
14.
Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, Uribe JS (2010) Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 28:E8CrossRefPubMed
15.
Deutsch H, Musacchio Jr MJ: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurgical focus 20, 2006
16.
Eckman WW, Hester L, McMillen M (2014) Same-day discharge after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a series of 808 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1806–1812CrossRefPubMed
17.
Elowitz EH, Yanni DS, Chwajol M, Starke RM, Perin NI (2011) Evaluation of indirect decompression of the lumbar spinal canal following minimally invasive lateral transpsoas interbody fusion: radiographic and outcome analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 54:201–206CrossRefPubMed
18.
Fan G, Gu G, Zhu Y, Guan X, Hu A, Wu X et al (2016) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis: in situ versus reduction. World Neurosurgery 90:580–587 E581CrossRefPubMed
19.
Formica M, Berjano P, Cavagnaro L, Zanirato A, Piazzolla A, Formica C (2014) Extreme lateral approach to the spine in degenerative and post traumatic lumbar diseases: selection process, results and complications. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 6):684–692CrossRefPubMed
20.
Gjessing MH (1951) Osteoplastic anterior fusion of the lower lumbar spine in spondylolisthesis, localized spondylosis, and tuberculous spondylitis. Acta Orthop Scand 20:200–213CrossRefPubMed
21.
Gu G, Zhang H, Fan G, He S, Cai X, Shen X et al (2014) Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop 38:817–824CrossRefPubMed
22.
Guan J, Bisson EF, Dailey AT, Hood RS, Schmidt MH (2016) Comparison of clinical outcomes in the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database for open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:E416–E421CrossRef
23.
Han K, Gao Q, Gao H, Lu Y, Bian N, Meng Q et al (2016) Clinical outcomes and cost analysis for unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in two levels during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF): a comparative analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med 9:11566–11573
24.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558CrossRefPubMed
25.
Jacobs WC, Vreeling A, De Kleuver M (2006) Fusion for low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15:391–402CrossRefPubMed
26.
Joseph JR, Smith BW, La Marca F, Park P (2015) Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 39:E4CrossRefPubMed
27.
Kang MS, Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS, et al.: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation: Comparison between primary and revision surgery. BioMed Research International 2014], 2014
28.
Kepler CK, Sharma AK, Huang RC (2011) Lateral transpsoas interbody fusion (LTIF) with plate fixation and unilateral pedicle screws: a preliminary report. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques 24:363–367CrossRefPubMed
29.
Khajavi K, Shen A, Hutchison A (2015) Substantial clinical benefit of minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):314–321CrossRefPubMed
30.
Kim JS, Jung B, Lee SH: Instrumented minimally invasive spinal-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF); minimum 5-years follow-up with clinical and radiologic outcomes. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2012
31.
Kim JY, Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS et al (2015) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis: comparison between isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg 84:1284–1293CrossRefPubMed
32.
Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Rhim S, Cheh G (2006) Pseudarthrosis in long adult spinal deformity instrumentation and fusion to the sacrum: prevalence and risk factor analysis of 144 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2329–2336CrossRef
33.
Knight RQ, Schwaegler P, Hanscom D, Roh J (2009) Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative conditions: early complication profile. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:34–37CrossRefPubMed
34.
Kunze B, Drasseck T, Kluba T (2011) Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) for the treatment of localised segment degeneration of lumbar spine. Z Orthop Unfall 149:312–316CrossRefPubMed
35.
Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, DC L, Chou D (2011) Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci 18:624–627CrossRefPubMed
36.
Lau D, Ziewacz J, Park P (2013) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis in patients with significant obesity. J Clin Neurosci 20:80–83CrossRefPubMed
37.
Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ (2012) Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1548–1557CrossRef
38.
Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21:2265–2270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Lee WC, Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS et al (2016) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in multilevel: comparison with conventional transforaminal interbody fusion. World Neurosurgery 85:236–243CrossRefPubMed
40.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6:e1000100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Lo WL, Lin CM, Yeh YS, SU YK (2015) Comparing miniopen and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion in single-level lumbar degeneration 2015:168384
42.
Luoma K, Riihimaki H, Luukkonen R, Raininko R, Viikari-Juntura E, Lamminen A (2000) Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:487–492CrossRef
43.
Lykissas MG, Aichmair A, Hughes AP, Sama AA, Lebl DR, Taher F et al (2014) Nerve injury after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 919 treated levels with identification of risk factors. Spine J 14:749–758CrossRefPubMed
44.
Malham GM, Ellis NJ, Parker RM, Seex KA: Clinical outcome and fusion rates after the first 30 extreme lateral interbody fusions. The Scientific World Journal 2012, 2012
45.
Malham GM, Parker RM, Goss B, Blecher CM, Ballok ZE (2014) Indirect foraminal decompression is independent of metabolically active facet arthropathy in extreme lateral interbody fusion. Spine 39:E1303–E1310CrossRefPubMed
46.
Marchi L, Abdala N, Oliveira L, Amaral R, Coutinho E, Pimenta L (2013) Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 19:110–118CrossRefPubMed
47.
McAfee PC, Shucosky E, Chotikul L, Salari B, Chen L, Jerrems D (2013) Multilevel extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) and osteotomies for 3-dimensional severe deformity: 25 consecutive cases. International Journal of Spine Surgery 7:e8–e19CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Min SH, Yoo JS (2013) The clinical and radiological outcomes of multilevel minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 22:1164–1172CrossRefPubMed
49.
Moller DJ, Slimack NP, Acosta FL, Koski TR, Fessler RG, Liu JC: Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transpsoas approach-related morbidity. Neurosurgical Focus 31, 2011
50.
51.
Nandyala SV, Fineberg SJ, Pelton M, Singh K (2014) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: one surgeon’s learning curve. Spine J 14:1460–1465CrossRefPubMed
52.
Nemani VM, Aichmair A, Taher F, Lebl DR, Hughes AP, Sama AA et al (2014) Rate of revision surgery after stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 39:E326–E331CrossRefPubMed
53.
Ozgur BM, Agarwal V, Nail E, Pimenta L (2010) Two-year clinical and radiographic success of minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach for the treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions. Sas j 4:41–46CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Ozgur BM, Baird LC: Lateral approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF and DLIF), in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Practical Guide to Anatomy and Techniques, 2009, 135–142
55.
Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, HC O, Yoo JH, Kim HB (2011) Surgical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of spondylolisthesis and degenerative segmental instability. Asian Spine J 5:228–236CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Sung NY (2014) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and degenerative spondylosis: 5-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1813–1823CrossRefPubMed
57.
Park Y, Lee SB, Seok SO, Jo BW, Ha JW (2015) Perioperative surgical complications and learning curve associated with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-institute experience. CiOS. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 7:91–96CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS et al (2014) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg 82:230–238CrossRefPubMed
59.
Pereira P, Buzek D, Franke J, Senker W, Kosmala A, Hubbe U, et al.: Surgical data and early postoperative outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion: results of a prospective, multicenter, observational data-monitored study. PLoS ONE 10, 2015
60.
Perez-Cruet MJ, Hussain NS, White GZ, Begun EM, Collins RA, Fahim DK et al (2014) Quality-of-life outcomes with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion based on long-term analysis of 304 consecutive patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E191–E198CrossRef
61.
Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ (2015) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 24:1017–1030CrossRefPubMed
62.
Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Mobbs RJ: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion—systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg:1–7, 2015
63.
Rhee JW, Petteys RJ: Prospective evaluation of 1-year outcomes in single-level percutaneous lumbar transfacet screw fixation in the lateral decubitus position following lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. 24:2546–2554, 2015
64.
Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J (2011) Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:26–32CrossRef
65.
Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Rodgers JA (2012) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of extreme lateral approach to interbody fusion with beta-tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite composite for lumbar degenerative conditions. Int J Spine Surg 6:24–28CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Rodgers WB, Lehmen JA, Gerber EJ, Rodgers JA: Grade 2 spondylolisthesis at L4–5 treated by XLIF: safety and midterm results in the worst case scenario. The Scientific World Journal 2012, 2012
67.
Rouben D, Casnellie M, Ferguson M (2011) Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:288–296CrossRefPubMed
68.
Salehi SA, Tawk R, Ganju A, LaMarca F, Liu JC, Ondra SL (2004) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery 54:368–374 discussion 374CrossRefPubMed
69.
Schnee CL, Freese A, Ansell LV (1997) Outcome analysis for adults with spondylolisthesis treated with posterolateral fusion and transpedicular screw fixation. J Neurosurg 86:56–63CrossRefPubMed
70.
Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18 Suppl:S1–6, 2005
71.
Sclafani JA, Kim CW (2014) Complications associated with the initial learning curve of minimally invasive spine surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1711–1717CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
72.
Sembrano JN, Tohmeh A, Isaacs R (2016) Two-year comparative outcomes of MIS lateral and MIS transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: part I: clinical findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(Suppl 8):S123–S132
73.
Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KPL, Zhang K, Yeo W, Tan SB et al (2013) Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine 38:2049–2055CrossRefPubMed
74.
Sharma AK, Kepler CK, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP, Huang RC, Sama AA (2011) Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic outcomes at 1 year: a preliminary report. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:242–250CrossRefPubMed
75.
Shen X, Zhang H, Gu X, Gu G, Zhou X, He S (2014) Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci 21:1612–1616CrossRefPubMed
76.
Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1615–1620CrossRef
77.
Simmonds MC, Higgins JP (2007) Covariate heterogeneity in meta-analysis: criteria for deciding between meta-regression and individual patient data. Stat Med 26:2982–2999CrossRefPubMed
78.
Starkweather A (2006) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: an old concept with new techniques. J Neurosci Nurs 38:13–20 30CrossRefPubMed
79.
Taillard WF: Etiology of spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res:30–39, 1976
80.
Tempel ZJ, Gandhoke GS, Bolinger BD, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS (2015) Vertebral body fracture following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF): report of two events out of 712 levels. Eur Spine J 24:409–413CrossRefPubMed
81.
Tender GC, Serban D (2013) Genitofemoral nerve protection during the lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach. Neurosurgery 73:ons192–ons196CrossRefPubMed
82.
Tender GC, Şerban D (2014) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of two techniques. Chirurgia (Romania) 109:812–821
83.
Thakkinstian A, McEvoy M, Minelli C, Gibson P, Hancox B, Duffy D et al (2005) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between {beta}2-adrenoceptor polymorphisms and asthma: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol 162:201–211CrossRefPubMed
84.
Thompson SG, Higgins JP (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21:1559–1573CrossRefPubMed
85.
Tian W, Xu YF, Liu B, Liu YJ, He D, Yuan Q, et al.: Computer-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion may be better than open surgery for treating degenerative lumbar disease. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2014
86.
Tsahtsarlis A, Wood M (2012) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumber interbody fusion and degenerative lumbar spine disease. Eur Spine J 21:2300–2305CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
87.
Uribe JS, Isaacs RE, Youssef JA, Khajavi K, Balzer JR, Kanter AS et al (2015) Can triggered electromyography monitoring throughout retraction predict postoperative symptomatic neuropraxia after XLIF? Results from a prospective multicenter trial. Eur Spine J 24:378–385CrossRefPubMed
88.
Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
89.
Waddell B, Briski D, Qadir R, Godoy G, Houston AH, Rudman E et al (2014) Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the correction of spondylolisthesis and adult degenerative scoliosis in high-risk patients: early radiographic results and complications. Ochsner Journal 14:23–31PubMedPubMedCentral
90.
Wang J, Zhou Y (2014) Perioperative complications related to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion: evaluation of 204 operations on lumbar instability at single center. Spine J 14:2078–2084CrossRefPubMed
91.
Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2011) Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 20:623–628CrossRefPubMed
92.
Wang MY, Grossman J (2016) Endoscopic minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion without general anesthesia: initial clinical experience with 1-year follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 40:1–5CrossRef
93.
Wang MY, Vasudevan R, Mindea SA (2014) Minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of rostral adjacent-segment lumbar degenerative stenosis without supplemental pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 21:861–866CrossRefPubMed
94.
Weistroffer JK, Perra JH, Lonstein JE, Schwender JD, Garvey TA, Transfeldt EE et al (2008) Complications in long fusions to the sacrum for adult scoliosis: minimum five-year analysis of fifty patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1478–1483CrossRef
95.
Wolfla CE, Maiman DJ, Coufal FJ, Wallace JR (2002) Retroperitoneal lateral lumbar interbody fusion with titanium threaded fusion cages. J Neurosurg 96:50–55CrossRefPubMed
96.
Wolfla CE, Maiman DJ, Coufal FJ, Wallace JR (2002) Retroperitoneal lateral lumbar interbody fusion with titanium threaded fusion cages. J Neurosurg 96:50–55CrossRefPubMed
97.
Wong AP, Smith ZA, Nixon AT, Lawton CD, Dahdaleh NS, Wong RH et al (2015) Intraoperative and perioperative complications in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 513 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 22:487–495CrossRefPubMed
98.
Wong AP, Smith ZA, Stadler JA, XY H, Yan JZ, Li XF et al (2014) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort. Neurosurg Clin N Am 25:279–304CrossRefPubMed
99.
Xia XL, Wang HL, Lyu FZ, Wang LX, Ma XS, Jiang JY (2015) Mast quadrant-assisted minimally invasive modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: single incision versus double incision. Chin Med J 128:871–876CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
100.
Yang Y, Hong Y, Liu H, Song Y, Li T, Liu L et al (2015) Comparison of clinical and radiographic results between isobar posterior dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar inter-body fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a four-year retrospective study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 136:100–106CrossRefPubMed
101.
Ye YP, Xu H, Chen D (2013) Comparison between posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion with transpedicular screw fixation for isthmic spondylolithesis: a meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:1649–1655CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
102.
Yoo JS, Min SH, Yoon SH (2015) Fusion rate according to mixture ratio and volumes of bone graft in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: minimum 2-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:183–189CrossRef
103.
Yuan PS, Rowshan K, Verma RB, Miller LE, Block JE: Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion with direct psoas visualization. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 9, 2014
104.
Zhang Q, Yuan Z, Zhou M, Liu H, Xu Y, Ren Y (2014) A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:367CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
105.
Zhang W, Li X, Shang X, Xu X, Hu Y, He R, et al.: Modified minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a trans-multifidus approach: a safe and effective alternative to open-TLIF. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 10, 2015
106.
Zhou C, Tian YH, Zheng YP, Liu XY, Wang HH (2016) Mini-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion through Wiltse approach to treating lumbar spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Orthop Surg 8:44–50CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Gun Keorochana
Kitipong Setrkraising
Patarawan Woratanarat
Alisara Arirachakaran
Jatupon Kongtharvonskul
Publication date
01-07-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Neurosurgical Review / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0344-5607
Electronic ISSN: 1437-2320
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-016-0806-8

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Neurosurgical Review 3/2018 Go to the issue

Review

Radiation-induced gliomas: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis

Review

Neuroimaging of neuropathic pain: review of current status and future directions

Case Report

Surgical management of giant intrapetrous internal carotid aneurysm presenting with coil exposure after endovascular treatment

Original Article

“Coil mainly” policy in management of intracranial ACoA aneurysms: single-centre experience with the systematic review of literature and meta-analysis

Original Article

Neurosurgical management of cavernous malformations located at the foramen of Monro

Original Article

Clinical features and neurosurgical treatment of trigonal cavernous malformations