Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion.
review · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 32528799.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1177/2192568219882344 and PMC identifier 7263326.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC-ND.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Narrative review. In this review, we address the question of whether the literature supports the notion that minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) improves outcome as compared with open TLIF (open-TLIF). Short and long-term outcomes, fusion rate, and cost-effectiveness were reviewed. This is a narrative review using various databases. Open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF studies were included and posterior lumbar interbody fusion studies were excluded. A description of paramedian incision in surgical technique was essential to the definition of MIS-TLIF. The present review included 14 prospective observational studies and 6 randomized controlled trials. With short-term outcomes, some studies indicate a better outcome with MIS-TLIF regarding intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, time to ambulation, postoperative narcotic use, and time to resume work. Both MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF surgeries improved Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and leg pain. Some studies show that MIS-TLIF resulted in lower back pain than open-TLIF. Radiation exposure was higher with MIS-TLIF. In the longer term, clinical outcomes were improved in both MIS and open TLIF groups. Fusion rates were more than 90% in both MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF. Cost-effectiveness and length of surgery had mixed results. The potential benefits of MIS-TLIF might be present in the early recovery period after surgery. Long-term outcomes were similar with both MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF.
Anatomy
- lumbar spine