Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine - Tập 24 Số 3 - Trang 416-427 - 2016
Christina L. Goldstein1, Kevin Macwan2, Kala Sundararajan2, Y. Raja Rampersaud2
1Divisions of Neurosurgery and
2Orthopedics, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Tóm tắt

OBJECT The objective of this study was to determine the clinical comparative effectiveness and adverse event rates of posterior minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with open transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF). METHODS A systematic review of the Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed. A hand search of reference lists was conducted. Studies were reviewed by 2 independent assessors to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative cohort studies including at least 10 patients undergoing MIS or open TLIF/PLIF for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders and reporting at least 1 of the following: clinical outcome measure, perioperative clinical or process measure, radiographic outcome, or adverse events. Study quality was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol. When appropriate, a meta-analysis of outcomes data was conducted. RESULTS The systematic review and reference list search identified 3301 articles, with 26 meeting study inclusion criteria. All studies, including 1 RCT, were of low or very low quality. No significant difference regarding age, sex, surgical levels, or diagnosis was identified between the 2 cohorts (856 patients in the MIS cohort, 806 patients in the open cohort). The meta-analysis revealed changes in the perioperative outcomes of mean estimated blood loss, time to ambulation, and length of stay favoring an MIS approach by 260 ml (p < 0.00001), 3.5 days (p = 0.0006), and 2.9 days (p < 0.00001), respectively. Operative time was not significantly different between the surgical techniques (p = 0.78). There was no significant difference in surgical adverse events (p = 0.97), but MIS cases were significantly less likely to experience medical adverse events (risk ratio [MIS vs open] = 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.23–0.69, p = 0.001). No difference in nonunion (p = 0.97) or reoperation rates (p = 0.97) was observed. Mean Oswestry Disability Index scores were slightly better in the patients undergoing MIS (n = 346) versus open TLIF/PLIF (n = 346) at a median follow-up time of 24 months (mean difference [MIS – open] = 3.32, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The result of this quantitative systematic review of clinical comparative effectiveness research examining MIS versus open TLIF/PLIF for degenerative lumbar pathology suggests equipoise in patient-reported clinical outcomes. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of adverse event data suggests equivalent rates of surgical complications with lower rates of medical complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive TLIF/PLIF compared with open surgery. The quality of the current comparative evidence is low to very low, with significant inherent bias.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Adogwa, 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, 24, 479, 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055cac

Bagan, 2008, Perioperative complications of minimally invasive surgery (MIS): comparison of MIS and open interbody fusion techniques, 17, 281

Brozek, 2009, Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3 An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions, 64, 669, 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.01973.x

Carreon, 2003, Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults, 85-A, 2089

Cho, 2007, Complications in posterior fusion and instrumentation for degenerative lumbar scoliosis, 32, 2232, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b2d3c

De la Garza-Ramos, 2014, The impact of obesity on short- and long-term outcomes following lumbar fusion

DerSimonian, 1986, Meta-analysis in clinical trials, 7, 177, 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

Dhall, 2008, Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up, 9, 560, 10.3171/SPI.2008.9.08142

Fan, 2010, Multifldus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach, 19, 316, 10.1007/s00586-009-1191-6

Foley, 2003, Minimally invasive lumbar fusion, 28, S26, 10.1097/01.BRS.0000076895.52418.5E

Fourney, 2010, Does minimal access tubular assisted spine surgery increase or decrease complications in spinal decompression or fusion?, 35, S57, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d82bb8

Garry, 2004, The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy, 328, 129, 10.1136/bmj.37984.623889.F6

Ghahreman, 2010, Minimal access versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of spondylolisthesis, 66, 296, 10.1227/01.NEU.0000363600.24074.D0

Glassman, 2009, Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication, 9, 13, 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.011

Goldstein, 2014, Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review, 472, 1727, 10.1007/s11999-014-3465-5

Harris, 2011, Mini-open versus open decompression and fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis, 40, E257

Isaacs, 2005, Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation, 3, 98, 10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0098

Kalanithi, 2012, Morbid obesity increases cost and complication rates in spinal arthrodesis, 37, 982, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823bbeef

Karikari, 2011, Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion in patients older than 70 years of age: analysis of periand postoperative complications, 68, 897, 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182098bfa

Karikari, 2010, Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes, 35, S294, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022ddc

Kotani, 2012, Midterm clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis, 21, 1171, 10.1007/s00586-011-2114-x

Lau, 2011, Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), 18, 624, 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.09.004

Lee, 2012, Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases, 37, 1548, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318252d44b

Lee, 2014, Learning curve of a complex surgical technique: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF), 27, E234, 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000089

Lee, 2012, Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 21, 2265, 10.1007/s00586-012-2281-4

Martin, 2008, Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems, 299, 656, 10.1001/jama.299.6.656

McGirt, 2011, Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients, 14, 771, 10.3171/2011.1.SPINE10571

Mirza, 2006, Towards standardized measurement of adverse events in spine surgery: conceptual model and pilot evaluation, 7, 53, 10.1186/1471-2474-7-53

Mobbs, 2012, Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies, 19, 829, 10.1016/j.jocn.2011.10.004

Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, 62, 1006, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005

Neyeloff, 2012, Meta-analyses and forest plots using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet: Step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis, 5, 52, 10.1186/1756-0500-5-52

Ntoukas, 2010, Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion, 53, 21, 10.1055/s-0030-1247560

Pace, 2003, Health-related quality of life after laparoscopic and open nephrectomy, 17, 143, 10.1007/s00464-002-8902-y

Park, 2008, The impact of minimally invasive spine surgery on perioperative complications in overweight or obese patients, 62, 693, 10.1227/01.neu.0000317318.33365.f1

Park, 2007, Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach, 32, 537, 10.1097/01.brs.0000256473.49791.f4

Parker, 2011, Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis, 54, 33, 10.1055/s-0030-1269904

Pelton, 2012, A comparison of perioperative costs and outcomes in patients with and without workers’ compensation claims treated with minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 37, 1914, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318257d490

Peng, 2009, Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 34, 1385, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be

Proietti, 2013, Complications in lumbar spine surgery: A retrospective analysis, 47, 340, 10.4103/0019-5413.114909

Rampersaud, 2012, Commentary: complications in spine surgery: “the devil is in the details”, 12, 207, 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.030

Rampersaud, 2011, Cost-utility analysis of posterior minimally invasive fusion compared with conventional open fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis, 5, 29, 10.1016/j.esas.2011.02.001

Scheufler, 2007, Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability, 60, 203

Schizas, 2009, Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience, 33, 1683, 10.1007/s00264-008-0687-8

Schoenfeld, 2011, Risk factors for immediate postoperative complications and mortality following spine surgery: a study of 3475 patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, 93, 1577, 10.2106/JBJS.J.01048

Selznick, 2009, Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety, 22, 207, 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318169026f

Silva, 2013, Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 35, E7, 10.3171/2013.5.FOCUS13157

Starkweather, 2008, The multiple benefits of minimally invasive spinal surgery: results comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar fusion, 40, 32, 10.1097/01376517-200802000-00006

Street, 2012, Morbidity and mortality of major adult spinal surgery. A prospective cohort analysis of 942 consecutive patients, 12, 22, 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.12.003

Stroup, 2000, Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group, 283, 2008, 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008

Thomsen, 1997, 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study, 22, 2813, 10.1097/00007632-199712150-00004

Topçu, 2003, Comparison of long-term quality of life after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy, 17, 291, 10.1007/s00464-001-9231-2

Tsutsumimoto, 2009, Miniopen versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction, 34, 1923, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a9d28e

Valentine, 2010, How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis, 35, 215, 10.3102/1076998609346961

Villavicencio, 2010, Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 1, 12, 10.4103/2152-7806.63905

Wang, 2011, Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial, 124, 3868

Wang, 2014, Comparison of clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 27, 202, 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31825d68ac

Wang, 2010, Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2, 19, 1780, 10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z

Wang, 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, 20, 623, 10.1007/s00586-010-1578-4

Wang, 2010, An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion, 12, 694, 10.3171/2009.12.SPINE09621

Wu, 2010, Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates, 35, 2273, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cd42cc

Zhang, 2009, Clinical diagnosis for discogenic low back pain, 5, 647

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Tập 24 Số 3

416-427

Thông tin tác giả