Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Orthop. Dec 18, 2015; 6(11): 996-1005
Published online Dec 18, 2015. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i11.996
Published online Dec 18, 2015. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i11.996
Table 1 Studies evaluating minimally invasive laminectomy
Ref. | Year | Surgery | Population | MIS patients | Open patients |
RCTs/IRCTs | |||||
Cho et al[14] | 2007 | Split process laminectomy: Marmot operation | LSS | 40 | 30 |
Usman et al[15] | 2013 | Unilateral laminectomy | LSS, no spondylolisthesis | 30 | 30 |
Mobbs et al[17] | 2014 | Laminectomy: Unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression | LSS, max 2 levels, no spondylolisthesis | 27 | 27 |
Watanabe et al[16] | 2011 | Lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy | Neurogenic claudication | 22 | 19 |
Clinical case series | |||||
Rahman et al[18] | 2008 | Laminectomy | LSS, no discectomy | 38 | 88 |
Nomura et al[19] | 2014 | Laminectomy: Spinous process-splitting laminectomy | Spondylolisthesis, LSS due to herniation | 124 | - |
Parikh et al[20] | 2008 | Laminectomy | Degenerative disease | 75 | - |
Komp et al[21] | 2011 | Laminectomy: Unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression | LSS, no spondylolisthesis > 1 | 74 | - |
Nomura et al[22] | 2012 | Laminectomy: Unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression: Paramedian approach | LSS, no discectomy | 70 | - |
Tomasino et al[23] | 2009 | Laminectomy: Unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression | LSS, herniation in obese | 28 | - |
Wada et al[24] | 2010 | Laminectomy | LSS, elderly patients | 15 | - |
Table 2 Studies comparing perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive laminectomy vs open laminectomy
Length of surgery (min) ± SD | Estimated blood loss (cc) ± SD | Neurologic complications | Length of stay (d) ± SD | |||||
MIS | Open | MIS | Open | MIS | Open | MIS | Open | |
RCTs/IRCTs | ||||||||
Cho et al[14] | 259 ± 122 | 193 ± 68 | 154 ± 135 | 132 ± 128 | - | - | 4.0 ± 2.9 | 7.2 ± 1.6 |
Usman et al[15] | 69 ± 0.1 | 65 ± 0.1 | - | - | - | - | 4.7 ± 0.5 | 3.5 ± 0.5 |
Mobbs et al[17] | - | - | 40 | 110 | 4% | 7% | 2.3 | 4.2 |
Watanabe et al[16] | 69 ± 29 | 82 ± 36 | 44 ± 75 | 55 ± 48 | 0% | 0% | - | - |
Clinical case series | ||||||||
Rahman et al[18] | 110 ± 10 | 157 ± 7 | 52 ± 14 | 246 ± 32 | 5% | 8% | 2.1 ± 0.7 | 4.1 ± 0.4 |
Nomura et al[19] | 187 ± 68 | - | 90 ± 94 | - | 2% | - | - | - |
Parikh et al[20] | 118 ± 40 | - | 41 ± 90 | - | 11% | - | 1.2 | 1.3 |
Komp et al[21] | 44 | - | 01 | - | 14% | - | - | - |
Nomura et al[22] | 772 | - | 15.02 | - | 0% | - | - | - |
Tomasino et al[23] | 102 ± 44 | - | 35 ± 76 | - | 11% | - | 2.1 | 2.2 |
Wada et al[24] | 144 | - | 60 | - | 7% | - | - | - |
Table 3 Studies on minimally invasive lateral approaches to the lumbar spine
Ref. | Year | Surgery | Type of study | Population | MIS patients | Open patients |
Cohort studies | ||||||
Hrabalek et al[27] | 2014 | XLIF | Retrospective cohort, XLIF vs ALIF | DDD, FBSS, spondylolisthesis | 88 | 120 |
Smith et al[28] | 2012 | XLIF | Retrospective cohort, XLIF vs ALIF | DDD, LSS, FBSS, spondylolisthesis, herniation | 115 | 87 |
1Rodgers et al[12] | 2010 | XLIF | Retrospective cohort, XLIF vs PLIF | > 80 yr, LSS, FBSS spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, fracture | 40 | 20 |
Huang et al[29] | 2010 | MIS-ALIF2 | Prospective cohort, MIS-ALIF vs ALIF | Not defined | 10 | 13 |
Case series | ||||||
3Rodgers et al[13] | 2011 | XLIF | PCS | LSS, DDD, FBSS, spondylolisthesis, scoliosis | 600 | - |
Ruetten et al[30] | 2005 | XLIF | RCS | Lumbar disc prolapse | 463 | - |
Lykissas et al[31] | 2014 | XLIF | RCS | Degenerative spinal conditions | 144 | - |
Grimm et al[32] | 2014 | XLIF | RCS | DDD, LSS, FBSS, scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, herniation | 108 | - |
Tohmeh et al[33] | 2011 | XLIF | PCS | LSS, DDD, spondylolisthesis, spondylosis, scoliosis, recurrent herniation, ASD | 102 | - |
Berjano et al[34] | 2012 | XLIF | RCS | DDD, LSS, spondylolisthesis | 97 | - |
Lee et al[26] | 2014 | DLIF | RCS | LSS, spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, post-infectious | 90 | - |
Marchi et al[35] | 2012 | XLIF | PCS | Spondylolisthesis | 52 | - |
Sharma et al[36] | 2011 | XLIF | RCS | Spondylosis ± listhesis, scoliosis | 43 | - |
Pimenta et al[25] | 2011 | XLIF | PCS | DDD | 36 | - |
Ahmadian et al[37] | 2013 | XLIF | RCS | L4/L5 spondylolisthesis | 31 | - |
Caputo et al[38] | 2012 | XLIF | PCS | Scoliosis | 30 | - |
Malham et al[39] | 2012 | XLIF | PCS | DDD, spondylolisthesis, scoliosis | 30 | - |
4Pimenta et al[40] | 2013 | XLIF | RCT | L4/L5 DDD | 30 | - |
Elowitz et al[41] | 2011 | XLIF | PCS | LSS | 25 | - |
Oliveira et al[42] | 2010 | XLIF | PCS | Degenerative spinal conditions | 21 | - |
Table 4 Studies comparing perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive lateral vs open anterior approaches to the lumbar spine
Ref. | Length of surgery (min) ± SD | Estimated blood loss (cc) ± SD | Neurologic complications | Length of stay (d) ± SD | ||||
MIS | Open | MIS | Open | MIS | Open | MIS | Open | |
Cohort studies | ||||||||
Hrabalek et al[27] | - | - | - | - | 28% | 24% | - | - |
Smith et al[28] | 112 ± 31 | 173 ± 31 | 90 ± 74 | 311 ± 370 | 3% | 6% | 1.7 ± 1.3 | 3.6 ± 0.9 |
Rodgers et al[12] | - | - | 1.4 g Hb | 2.7 g Hb | - | - | 1.3 | 5.3 |
Huang et al[29] | 176 ± 8 | 202 ± 15 | 572 ± 93 | 970 ± 209 | - | - | 11.6 ± 1.3 | 12.5 ± 1.3 |
Case series | ||||||||
Rodgers et al[13] | - | - | 1.38 g Hb | - | 1% | - | 1.2 | - |
Ruetten et al[30] | 27 | - | 01 | - | 0% | - | - | - |
Lykissas et al[31] | 295 ± 180 | - | - | - | 135% | - | - | - |
Grimm et al[32] | 122 | - | 181 | - | 20% | - | 3.0 | - |
Tohmeh et al[33] | - | - | - | - | 48% | - | - | - |
Berjano et al[34] | - | - | - | - | 16% | - | - | - |
Lee et al[26] | 52 ± 19 | - | 01 | - | 19% | - | - | - |
Marchi et al[35] | 73 ± 31 | - | < 50 | - | 29% | - | - | - |
Sharma et al[36] | - | - | - | - | 70% | - | - | - |
Pimenta et al[25] | 130 | - | - | - | 28% | - | 1.4 | - |
Ahmadian et al[37] | - | - | 94 | - | - | - | 3.5 | - |
Caputo et al[38] | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - | - |
Malham et al[39] | 84 | - | 70 | - | 20% | - | - | - |
Pimenta et al[40] | 69 ± 11 | - | < 50 | - | 13% | - | - | - |
Elowitz et al[41] | - | - | - | - | 20%3 | - | - | - |
Oliveira et al[42] | 86 | - | 44 | - | 14% | - | 1.2 | - |
Table 5 Studies on minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Ref. | Year | Surgery | Population | MIS patients | Open patients |
RCTs/IRCTs | |||||
Wang et al[43] | 2011 | TLIF | LSS, herniation, spondylolisthesis | 41 | 38 |
Shunwu et al[44] | 2010 | TLIF | Degenerative lumbar disease | 32 | 30 |
Wang et al[45] | 2011 | TLIF | Failed discectomy and decompression | 25 | 27 |
Cohort studies | |||||
Wong et al[46] | 2014 | TLIF | FBSS, DDD, spondylolisthesis | 144 | 54 |
Zhang et al[47] | 2013 | TLIF | DDD | 82 | 76 |
Villavicencio et al[48] | 2010 | TLIF | LSS, DDD ± herniation, spondylolisthesis | 76 | 63 |
Lee et al[49] | 2012 | TLIF | LSS, DDD, herniation, spondylolisthesis | 72 | 72 |
Terman et al[50] | 2014 | TLIF | DDD, LSS, spondylolisthesis, herniation | 53 | 21 |
Cheng et al[51] | 2013 | TLIF | Spondylosis/listhesis, foraminal stenosis | 50 | 25 |
Liang et al[52] | 2011 | TLIF | Degenerative lumbar instability | 45 | 42 |
Yang et al[53] | 2013 | TLIF | Lumbar degenerative diseases | 43 | 104 |
Gu et al[54] | 2014 | TLIF | Degenerative conditions | 43 | 38 |
Wang et al[55] | 2010 | TLIF | Spondylolisthesis | 42 | 43 |
Zairi et al[56] | 2013 | Mini open TLIF | DDD, spondylolisthesis | 40 | 60 |
Seng et al[57] | 2013 | TLIF | DDD, spondylolisthesis | 40 | 40 |
Pelton et al[58] | 2012 | TLIF | DDD, spondylolisthesis | 33 | 33 |
Singh et al[59] | 2014 | TLIF | DDD, spondylolisthesis | 33 | 33 |
Brodano et al[60] | 2013 | Mini open TLIF | DDD, spondylolisthesis | 30 | 34 |
Zou et al[61] | 2013 | TLIF | LSS, spondylolisthesis, herniation | 30 | 30 |
1Peng et al[62] | 2009 | TLIF | DDD, spondylolisthesis | 29 | 29 |
Archavlis et al[63] | 2013 | TLIF | SDS and severe FJO | 24 | 25 |
Dhall et al[64] | 2008 | Mini open TLIF | DDD, spondylolisthesis | 21 | 21 |
Schizas et al[65] | 2009 | TLIF | DDD, spondylolisthesis | 18 | 18 |
Adogwa et al[66] | 2011 | TLIF | Grade I spondylolithesis | 15 | 15 |
Niesche et al[67] | 2014 | TLIF | Recurrent lumbar disc herniation | 14 | 19 |
Lau et al[68] | 2011 | TLIF | Spondylosis/listhesis/lysis | 10 | 12 |
Table 6 Studies comparing perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Ref. | Length of surgery (min) ± SD | Estimated blood loss (cc) ± SD | Neurologic complications | Length of stay (d) ± SD | ||||
MIS | Open | MIS | Open | MIS | Open | MIS | Open | |
RCTs/IRCTs | ||||||||
Wang et al[43] | 168.7 ± 36.4 | 145.0 ± 26.8 | 207.7 ± 57.6 | 258.9 ± 122.2 | 2% | 0% | 6.4 ± 2.5 | 8.7 ± 2.1 |
Shunwu et al[44] | 159.2 ± 21.7 | 142.8 ± 22.5 | 399.8 ± 125.8 | 517.0 ± 147.8 | 0% | 0% | 9.3 ± 2.6 | 12.5 ± 1.8 |
Wang et al[45] | 139.0 ± 27.0 | 143.0 ± 35.0 | 291.0 ± 86.0 | 652.0 ± 150.0 | 12% | 19% | - | - |
Cohort studies | ||||||||
Wong et al[46] | 173 | 309 | 115 | 485 | 12% | 13% | 2.8 | 4.4 |
Zhang et al[47] | 120 ± 35 | 115 ± 28 | 250 ± 75 | 650 ± 150 | 0% | 3% | - | - |
Villavicencio et al[48] | 223 ± 68 | 215 ± 60 | 163 ± 131 | 367 ± 298 | 11% | 13% | 3.0 ± 2.3 | 4.2 ± 3.5 |
Lee et al[49] | 166 ± 52 | 182 ± 45 | 161 ± 51 | 447 ± 519 | 1% | 0% | 3.2 ± 2.9 | 6.8 ± 3.4 |
Terman et al[50] | - | - | 100 | 450 | - | - | 2.0 | 3.0 |
Cheng et al[51] | 245 ± 73 | 279 ± 15 | 393 ± 284 | 536 ± 324 | 0% | 12% | 4.8 ± 1.8 | 6.1 ± 1.8 |
Liang et al[52] | 127 ± 60 | 96 ± 46 | 194 ± 86 | 357 ± 116 | - | - | - | - |
Yang et al[53] | 175 ± 35 | 177 ± 30 | 362 ± 177 | 720 ± 171 | 7% | 2% | 4.0 ± 1.3 | 7.1 ± 1.0 |
Gu et al[54] | 196 ± 28 | 187 ± 23 | 248 ± 94 | 576 ± 176 | 5% | 3% | 9.3 ± 3.7 | 12.1 ± 3.6 |
Wang et al[55] | 145 ± 27 | 156 ± 32 | 264 ± 89 | 673 ± 145 | 10% | 7% | 10.6 ± 2.5 | 14.6 ± 3.8 |
Zairi et al[56] | 170 | 186 | 148 | 486 | 3% | 3% | 4.5 | 5.5 |
Seng et al[57] | 185 ± 9 | 166 ± 7 | 127 ± 46 | 405 ± 80 | - | - | - | - |
Pelton et al[58] | 112 ± 33 | 185 ± 34 | 125 ± 76 | 275 ± 99 | - | - | 2.0 ± 0.7 | 3.0 ± 1.1 |
Singh et al[59] | 116 ± 28 | 186 ± 31 | 124 ± 92 | 380 ± 191 | - | - | 2.3 ± 1.2 | 2.9 ± 1.1 |
Brodano et al[60] | 144 | 102 | 230 | 620 | 3% | 9% | 4.1 | 7.4 |
Zou et al[61] | 150 ± 41 | 175 ± 37 | 131 ± 74 | 318 ± 177 | 0% | 0% | 7.5 ± 2.7 | 9.3 ± 4.2 |
Peng et al[62] | 216 | 171 | 150 | 681 | - | - | 4.0 | 6.7 |
Archavlis et al[63] | 220 ± 48 | 190 ± 65 | 185 ± 140 | 255 ± 468 | 13% | 4% | 7.0 | 11.0 |
Dhall et al[64] | 199 | 237 | 194 | 505 | 0% | 5% | 3.0 | 5.5 |
Schizas et al[65] | - | - | 456 | 961 | 17% | 6% | 6.1 | 8.2 |
Adogwa et al[66] | 300 | 210 | 200 | 295 | 0% | 0% | 3.0 | 5.0 |
Niesche et al[67] | 140 | 130 | 150 | 380 | 0% | 11% | 5.0 | 10.0 |
Lau et al[68] | 390 | 365 | 467 | 566 | 0% | 0% | 5.0 | 6.2 |
- Citation: Skovrlj B, Belton P, Zarzour H, Qureshi SA. Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review. World J Orthop 2015; 6(11): 996-1005
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v6/i11/996.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v6.i11.996