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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Surgery
Published in: BMC Surgery 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Spinal Stenosis | Research

Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Authors: Wei Li, Haibin Wei, Ran Zhang

Published in: BMC Surgery | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.

Results

Totally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Kim M, Cho S, Noh Y, Goh D, Son HJ, Huh J, et al. Changes in pain scores and walking distance after epidural steroid injection in patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. Medicine. 2022;101:e29302.
3.
Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, Negrini S. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 2016: Cd010264.
4.
Lurie J, Tomkins-Lane C. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2016;352:h6234.
5.
Minetama M, Kawakami M, Teraguchi M, Kagotani R, Mera Y, Sumiya T, et al. Supervised physical therapy vs. home exercise for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2019; 19: 1310–8.
6.
Katz JN, Zimmerman ZE, Mass H, Makhni MC. Diagnosis and management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a review. JAMA. 2022;327:1688–99.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Shen J, Xu S, Xu S, Ye S, Hao J. Fusion or not for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Pain Physician. 2018;21:1–8.PubMed
8.
Audat Z, Moutasem O, Yousef K, Mohammad B. Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. Singapore Med J. 2012;53:183–7.PubMed
9.
Alijani B, Emamhadi M, Behzadnia H, Aramnia A, Chabok SY, Ramtinfar S, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion: Analogous procedures in decreasing the index of disability in patients with spondylolisthesis. Asian J Neurosurg. 2015;10:51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Van Bogaert W, Tegner H, Coppieters I, Huysmans E, Nijs J, Moens M, et al. The predictive value of fear avoidance beliefs for outcomes following surgery for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Pain Physician. 2022;25:441–57.PubMed
11.
Kim CH, Easley K, Lee JS, Hong JY, Virk M, Hsieh PC, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal interbody lumbar fusion. Global Spine J. 2020;10:143s-s150.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Ahn Y, Youn MS, Heo DH. Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comprehensive review. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019;16:373–80.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zhao XB, Ma HJ, Geng B, Zhou HG, Xia YY. Early clinical evaluation of percutaneous full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw insertion for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Orthop Surg. 2021;13:328–37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Gao QY, Wei FL, Li T, Zhu KL, Du MR, Heng W, et al. Oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022; 9: 829426.
15.
He LM, Li JR, Wu HR, Chang Q, Guan XM, Ma Z, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression Vs. open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Front Surg. 2022; 9: 915522.
16.
Kim HJ, Kang KT, Chun HJ, Hwang JS, Chang BS, Lee CK, et al. Comparative study of 1-year clinical and radiological outcomes using robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation and freehand technique in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Int J Med Robot. 2018; 14: e1917.
17.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Tian JH, Li L, Zhao Y, Ge L. Writing and reporting of network meta-analysis. Chinese J Drug Eval. 2013;30:4.
20.
Shim SR, Kim SJ, Lee J, Rücker G. Network meta-analysis: application and practice using R software. Epidemiol Health. 2019;41:1–10.
21.
Archavlis E, Carvi y Nievas M. Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22: 1731–40.
22.
Asil K, Yaldiz C. Retrospective comparison of radiological and clinical outcomes of PLIF and TLIF techniques in patients who underwent lumbar spinal posterior stabilization. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:1–7.
23.
Chong EY, Tong Tan LY, Chong CS, Yeo W, Siang Koh DT, Jiang L, et al. Radiological and clinical outcomes comparing 2-level MIS lateral and MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Global Spine J. 2022: 21925682221132745.
24.
Fan G, Wu X, Yu S, Sun Q, Guan X, Zhang H, et al. Clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in three-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:9540298.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Gao G, Cao L, Du X, Xu B, Zhang P, Zhang X, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and TLIF for treatment of lumbar spine stenosis. J Healthc Eng. 2022;2022:9389239.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Ha KY, Na KH, Shin JH, Kim KW. Comparison of posterolateral fusion with and without additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:229–34.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Hallett A, Huntley JS, Gibson JNA. Foraminal stenosis and single-level degenerative disc disease - A randomized controlled trial comparing decompression with decompression and instrumented fusion. Spine. 2007;32:1375–80.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Harris EB, Sayadipour A, Massey P, Duplantier NL, Anderson DG. Mini-open versus open decompression and fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2011;40:E257–61.PubMed
29.
Hiyama A, Katoh H, Sakai D, Tanaka M, Sato M, Watanabe M. Short-term comparison of preoperative and postoperative pain after indirect decompression surgery and direct decompression surgery in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Sci Rep. 2020;10:18887.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Hu W, Yang G, Wang H, Wu X, Ma H, Zhang K, et al. Which is better in clinical and radiological outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease of two segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF? J Pers Med. 2022;12:1–10.
31.
Huang Y, Chen J, Gao P, Gu C, Fan J, Hu Z, et al. A comparison of the bilateral decompression via unilateral approach versus conventional approach transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease in the elderly. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22:156.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Isaacs RE, Sembrano JN, Tohmeh AG. Two-year comparative outcomes of MIS lateral and MIS transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2016;41:s133–44.PubMed
33.
Jia J, Chen C, Wang P, Wang L, Liu X. Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration after minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Clin Spine Surg. 2022;36:E45–50.
34.
Kang MS, You KH, Choi JY, Heo DH, Chung HJ, Park HJ. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique. Spine J. 2021;21:2066–77.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Kim HJ, Kang KT, Chun HJ, Hwang JS, Chang BS, Lee CK, et al. Comparative study of 1-year clinical and radiological outcomes using robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation and freehand technique in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2018;14:8.CrossRef
36.
Kim JE, Yoo HS, Choi DJ, Park EJ, Jee SM. Comparison of minimal invasive versus Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar disease. Clin Spine Surg. 2021;34:E64-e71.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Kono Y, Gen H, Sakuma Y, Koshika Y. Comparison of clinical and radiologic results of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and extreme lateral interbody fusion indirect decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine J. 2018;12:356–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:1171–7.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Lin L, Liu XQ, Shi L, Cheng S, Wang ZQ, Ge QJ, et al. Comparison of postoperative outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Front Surg. 2022;9:1–9.
40.
Mun HY, Ko MJ, Kim YB, Park SW. Usefulness of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5–S1 level compared to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2020;63:723–9.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Takaoka H, Inage K, Eguchi Y, Shiga Y, Furuya T, Maki S, et al. Comparison between intervertebral oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study. Sci Rep. 2021;11:16673.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Urquhart JC, Alnaghmoosh N, Gurr KR, Bailey SI, Tallon C, Dehens S, et al. Posterolateral versus posterior interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clin Spine Surg. 2018;31:E446–52.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Verla T, Winnegan L, Mayer R, Cherian J, Yaghi N, Palejwala A, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal versus direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion: effect on return to work, narcotic use, and quality of life. World Neurosurg. 2018;116:E321–8.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Wong AP, Smith ZA, Stadler JA, Hu XY, Yan JZ, Li XF, et al. 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. 2014; 25: 279-+.
45.
Yin P, Ding Y, Zhou L, Xu C, Gao H, Pang D, et al. Innovative percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion of lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative instability: a non-randomized clinical trial. J Pain Res. 2021;14:3685–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Yu B, Zhang J, Pan J, Wang Y, Chen Y, Zhao W, et al. Psychological and functional comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis. Orthop Surg. 2021;13:1213–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Zhao L, Xie TH, Wang XD, Yang ZQ, Pu XX, Lu YF, et al. Comparing the medium-term outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion via transforaminal and oblique approach in treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases. Spine J. 2022;22:993–1001.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Gagliardi MJ, Guiroy AJ, Camino-Willhuber G, Joaquim AF, Carazzo CA, Yasuda E, et al. Is indirect decompression and fusion more effective than direct decompression and fusion for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with instability? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J. 2023;13:499–511.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Zhou SG, Liu CH, Dai KH, Lai YX. Lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Spine Surg. 2020.
50.
Kang YN, Ho YW, Chu W, Chou WS, Cheng SH. Effects and safety of lumbar fusion techniques in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Global Spine J. 2022;12:493–502.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Said E, Abdel-Wanis ME, Ameen M, Sayed AA, Mosallam KH, Ahmed AM, et al. Posterolateral fusion versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Global spine journal. 2022;12:990–1002.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Xiao YX, Chen QX, Li FC. Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of the technique, indications and graft materials. J Int Med Res. 2009;37:908–17.PubMedCrossRef
53.
J Zhang TF Liu H Shan ZY Wan Z Wang O Viswanath 2021 Decompression Using Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review Pain Ther 10 941 959PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
Ge DH, Stekas ND, Varlotta CG, Fischer CR, Petrizzo A, Protopsaltis TS, et al. Comparative analysis of two transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques: open TLIF versus Wiltse MIS TLIF. Spine. 2019;44:E555–60.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Yoshikane K, Kikuchi K, Okazaki K. Lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis provides comparable clinical outcomes in patients with and without degenerative Spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurgy. 2021;150:e361–71.CrossRef
56.
Wei FL, Zhou CP, Liu R, Zhu KL, Du MR, Gao HR, et al. Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: a network meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Surg (London, England). 2021;85:19–28.CrossRef
57.
Hoffmann CH,  Kandziora F [Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion] Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie. 2020; 32:180-191
58.
Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg (Hong Kong). 2015;1:2–18.
59.
Schöller K, Alimi M, Cong GT, Christos P, Härtl R. Lumbar spinal stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of secondary fusion rates following open vs minimally invasive decompression. Neurosurgery. 2017;80:355–67.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Wu RH, Fraser JF, Härtl R. Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine. 2010;35:2273–81.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:321–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis
Authors
Wei Li
Haibin Wei
Ran Zhang
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Surgery / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2482
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02242-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Surgery 1/2023 Go to the issue

Research

Revitalize splenic functions. Following a splenectomy for trauma, a small amount of splenic autotransplantation was performed

Research

Long-term survival and portal vein patency with novel PVTT surgery approach in advanced HCC patients with Vp3/4 PVTT following combination therapy of TKIs and PD-1 inhibitors

Research

What we should consider to facilitate recovery of the hematological profile in all patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy: the role of preoperative intravenous iron treatment

Research

Construction and validation of machine learning models for sepsis prediction in patients with acute pancreatitis

Research

Interventional pulmonary procedures and their outcomes in patients with STAT3 hyper IgE syndrome

Research

A meta-analysis of risk factors for non-superficial surgical site infection following spinal surgery