Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

Open Access 01-09-2016 | Review Article

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications

Authors: Wei Hu, Jiandong Tang, Xianpei Wu, Li Zhang, Baoyi Ke

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 9/2016

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.

Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolithesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347CrossRefPubMed

Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:567–571CrossRef

Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O'Brien MF, Smith DA (2002) Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15(1):31–38CrossRefPubMed

Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV (2001) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications and early results. Neurosurgery 48(3):569–574, discussion 574–5CrossRefPubMed

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(2):368–374, discussion 374CrossRefPubMed

Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW Jr, Kuklo TR (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(4):37–46CrossRef

Foley KT, Gupta SK (2002) Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg 97(1 suppl):7–12PubMed

Lucio JC, Vanconia RB, Deluzio KJ, Lehmen JA, Rodgers JA, Rodgers W (2012) Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 5:65–74. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S30974

Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2004) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. Accessed April 29, 2004

10.

Archavlis E, Carvi YNM (2013) Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J 22:1731–1740. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2732-6

11.

Brodano GB, Martikos K, Lolli F, Gasbarrini A, Cioni A, Bandiera S, Silvestre MD, Boriani S, Greggi T (2015) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative disk disease and spondylolisthesis grade I: minimally invasive versus open surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(10):E559–E564. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000034 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, Zhang K, Yeo W, Tan SB, Yue WM (2013) Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(23):2049–2055. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a8212d CrossRef

13.

Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Oglesby M, Pelton MA, Andersson GB, Isayeva D, Jegier BJ, Phillips FM (2014) A peri-operative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 14(8):1694–1701. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.053 16

14.

Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J (2012) Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci 19(6):829–835. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2011.10.004

15.

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(11):2265–2270. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2281-4

16.

Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) 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 24(8):479–484. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055cac PubMed

17.

Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D (2011) Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci 18(5):624–7. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2010.09.004 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Wang HL, Lü FZ, Jiang JY, Ma X, Xia XL, Wang LX (2011) Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J 124(23):3868–3874PubMed

19.

Fan SW, Zhao X, Zhao FD et al (2010) Minimally invasive transforminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Spine 35(17):1615–20CrossRef

20.

Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2010) Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 19(10):1780–1784. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z

21.

Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(13):1385–1389. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be CrossRef

22.

Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33(6):1683–1688. doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0687-8

23.

Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 32(5):537–543

24.

Guangfei G, Hailong Z, Guoxin F, Shisheng H, Xiaobing C, Xiaolong S, Xiaofei G, Xu Z (2014) Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop 38(4):817–824CrossRef

25.

Mariscalco MW, Yamashita T, Steinmetz MP, Krishnaney AA, Lieberman IH, Mroz TE (2011) Radiation exposure to the surgeon during open lumbar microdiscectomy and minimally invasive microdiscectomy: a prospective, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(3):255–260. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ceb976 CrossRef

Title: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications
Authors: Wei Hu
Jiandong Tang
Xianpei Wu
Li Zhang
Baoyi Ke
Publication date: 01-09-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 9/2016
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3153-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2016

Surgeons changing the approach for total hip arthroplasty from posterior to direct anterior with fluoroscopy should consider potential excessive cup anteversion and flexion implantation of the stem in their early experience

Balloon tibioplasty for reduction of depressed tibial plateau fractures: Preliminary radiographic and clinical results

Revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: national trends and in-hospital outcomes

Early detection of local recurrence after soft tissue sarcoma resection and flap reconstruction

Pre-operative radiological measurement of femoral rotation for prosthetic positioning in total knee arthroplasty

Long-term results with the Atlas IIIp elastic cementless acetabular component in total hip replacement