Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Surgery Spinal Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

被引:59
|
作者
Lu, Victor M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Kerezoudis, Panagiotis [1 ,2 ]
Gilder, Hannah E. [1 ,2 ]
McCutcheon, Brandon A. [1 ,2 ]
Phan, Kevin [3 ]
Bydon, Mohamad [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Dept Neurol Surg, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Neuroinformat Lab, Rochester, MN USA
[3] Univ Sydney, Sydney Med Sch, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
关键词
degenerative spondylolisthesis; isthmic spondylolisthesis; minimally invasive surgery; posterior lumbar interbody fusion; spinal fusion; spine; spondylolisthesis; systematic review; transforaminal interbody fusion; LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; CLINICAL-OUTCOMES; LEARNING-CURVE; COMPLICATIONS; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1097/BRS.0000000000001731
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design.Systematic review and meta-analysis.Objective.Compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) spinal fusion outcomes for the treatment of spondylolisthesis.Summary of Background Data.OS spinal fusion is an interventional option for patients with spinal disease who have failed conservative therapy. During the past decade, MIS approaches have increasingly been used, with potential benefits of reduced surgical trauma, postoperative pain, and length of hospital stay. However, current literature consists of single-center, low-quality studies with no review of approaches specific to spondylolisthesis only.Methods.This first systematic review of the literature regarding MIS and OS spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis treatment was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for article identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Electronic literature search of Medline/PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Scopus databases yielded 2489 articles. These articles were screened against established criteria for inclusion into this study.Results.A total of five retrospective and five prospective articles with a total of 602 patients were found. Reported spondylolisthesis grades were I and II only. Overall, MIS was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD], -331.04mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -490.48 to -171.59; P<0.0001) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD, -1.74 days; 95% CI, -3.04 to -0.45; P=0.008). There was no significant difference overall between MIS and OS in terms of functional or pain outcomes. Subgroup analysis of prospective studies revealed MIS had greater operative time (MD, 19.00minutes; 95% CI, 0.90 to 37.10; P=0.04) and lower final functional scores (weighted MD, -1.84; 95% CI, -3.61 to -0.07; P=0.04) compared with OS.Conclusion.Current data suggests spinal fusion by MIS is a safe and effective approach to treat grade I and grade II spondylolisthesis. Moreover, although prospective trials associate MIS with better functional outcomes, longer-term and randomized trials are warranted to validate any association found in this study.
引用
收藏
页码:E177 / E185
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Expandable Versus Static Cages in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Calvachi-Prieto, Paola
    McAvoy, Malia B.
    Cerecedo-Lopez, Christian D.
    Lu, Yi
    Chi, John H.
    Aglio, Linda S.
    Smith, Timothy R.
    Gormley, William B.
    Groff, Michael W.
    Mekary, Rania A.
    Zaidi, Hasan A.
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2021, 151 : E607 - E614
  • [32] Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Disk Disease and Spondylolisthesis Grade I Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery
    Brodano, Giovanni B.
    Martikos, Konstantinos
    Lolli, Francesco
    Gasbarrini, Alessandro
    Cioni, Alfredo
    Bandiera, Stefano
    Di Silvestre, Mario
    Boriani, Stefano
    Greggi, Tiziana
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2015, 28 (10): : E559 - E564
  • [33] The economic burden of diabetes in spinal fusion surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mariscal, Gonzalo
    Sasso, Rick C.
    O'Toole, John E.
    Chaput, Christopher D.
    Steinmetz, Michael P.
    Arnold, Paul M.
    Witiw, Christopher D.
    Jacobs, W. Bradley
    Harrop, James S.
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2025, 34 (03) : 935 - 953
  • [34] Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review with Network MetaAnalysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Wu, Yingjie
    Shen, Ruoqi
    Li, Shengke
    Luo, Ting
    Rong, Limin
    Zhang, Liangming
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 185
  • [35] Open versus minimally-invasive surgery for Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis study
    Gatz, Matthias
    Driessen, Arne
    Eschweiler, Joerg
    Tingart, Markus
    Migliorini, Filippo
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2021, 141 (03) : 383 - 401
  • [36] The Effect of Obesity on Clinical Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Wang, Tao
    Han, Chao
    Jiang, Hongqiang
    Tian, Peng
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 110 : E438 - E449
  • [37] The Perioperative Efficacy and Safety of Antifibrinolytics in Adult Spinal Fusion Surgery A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Lu, Victor M.
    Ho, Yam-Ting
    Nambiar, Mithun
    Mobbs, Ralph J.
    Phan, Kevin
    SPINE, 2018, 43 (16) : E949 - E958
  • [38] The role of older age and obesity in minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    van der Heijde, N.
    Balduzzi, A.
    Alseidi, A.
    Dokmak, S.
    Polanco, P. M.
    Sandford, D.
    Shrikhande, S. V.
    Vollmer, C.
    Wang, S. E.
    Besselink, M. G.
    Asbun, H.
    Abu Hilal, M.
    PANCREATOLOGY, 2020, 20 (06) : 1234 - 1242
  • [39] Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: Is Minimally Invasive Surgery Better than Open? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Petrucciani, Niccolo
    Crovetto, Anna
    De Felice, Francesca
    Pace, Marco
    Giulitti, Diego
    Yusef, Marco
    Nigri, Giuseppe
    Valabrega, Stefano
    Kassir, Radwan
    D'Angelo, Francesco
    Debs, Tarek
    Ramacciato, Giovanni
    Aurello, Paolo
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2022, 42 (07) : 3285 - 3298