The Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Posterior Approach Spinal Fusion in Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: The Current Evidence from Prospective Comparative Studies

Purpose. To investigate the evidence of minimally invasive (MI) versus open (OP) posterior lumbar fusion in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis from current prospective literatures. Methods. The electronic literature database of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library was searched at April 2016. The...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BioMed research international 2017-01, Vol.2017 (2017), p.1-9
Main Authors: Ni, Wen-Fei, Yin, Li-Hui, Li, Shu-Min, Weng, Wan-Qing, Feng, Zhen-Hua, Shen, Zhi-Hao, Chen, Chun-Hui, Wu, Ai-Min, Chi, Yong-Long
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Back Pain - surgery
Biomedical research
Blood Loss, Surgical
Care and treatment
Comparative analysis
Female
Humans
Length of Stay
Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery
Lumbosacral Region - surgery
Male
Methods
Middle Aged
Minimally invasive surgery
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods
Operative Time
Pain Measurement - methods
Patient outcomes
Prospective Studies
Review
Spinal fusion
Spinal Fusion - methods
Spondylolisthesis
Spondylolisthesis - surgery
Treatment Outcome
Visual Analog Scale
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose. To investigate the evidence of minimally invasive (MI) versus open (OP) posterior lumbar fusion in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis from current prospective literatures. Methods. The electronic literature database of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library was searched at April 2016. The data of operative time, estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) of both lower back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), SF-36 PCS (physical component scores) and SF-36 MCS (mental component scores), complications, fusion rate, and secondary surgery were extracted and analyzed by STATA 12.0 software. Results. Five nonrandom prospective comparative studies were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the MI group had a significantly longer operative time than OP group, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. No significant difference was found in back pain, leg pain, ODI, SF-36 PCS, SF-36 MCS, complications, fusion rate, and secondary surgery between MI and OP groups. Conclusion. The prospective evidence suggested that MI posterior fusion for spondylolisthesis had less EBL and hospital stay than OP fusion; however it took more operative time. Both MI and OP fusion had similar results in pain and functional outcomes, complication, fusion rate, and secondary surgery.
ISSN:2314-6133
2314-6141
DOI:10.1155/2017/8423638