Journal List > Yonsei Med J > v.59(4) > 1032300

TOOLS
Park, Seok, Lee, and Ha: Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Fusion Is More Effective Than Open Fusion: A Meta-Analysis
Original Article
Orthopedics & Spine

Yonsei Medical Journal 2018; 59(4): 524-538.

Published online: 3 May 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2018.59.4.524

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Fusion Is More Effective Than Open Fusion: A Meta-Analysis

Yung Park1, 2, Sang-Ok Seok2, Soo-Bin Lee2, Joong-Won Ha1, 2

1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea.

2Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding author: Dr. Yung Park, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, 100 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10444, Korea. Tel: 82-31-900-0270, Fax: 82-31-900-0343, yungspine@gmail.com

Received 6 December 2017       Revised 23 January 2018       Accepted 5 March 2018

© Copyright: Yonsei University College of Medicine 2018

Yonsei University College of Medicine

(open-access, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of minimally invasive spinal fusion in comparison to open fusion for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis or spondylosis.

Materials and Methods

The present study was conducted as a meta-analysis of all estimates from studies that were selected after comprehensive literature search by two independent reviewers.

Results

Of 745 articles, nine prospective cohort studies were identifed. The quality of evidence was downgraded because of study design, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias. Greater Oswestry Disability Index score improvement [weighted mean difference (WMD), 3.2; 95% confdence interval (CI), 1.5 to 5.0; p=0.0003] and a lower infection rate (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.9; p=0.02) were observed in the minimally invasive group (low-quality evidence). The minimally invasive group had less blood loss (WMD, 269.5 mL; 95% CI, 246.2 to 292.9 mL; p<0.0001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD, 1.3 days; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5 days, p<0.0001), and longer operation time (WMD, 21.0 minutes; 95% CI, 15.9 to 26.2 minutes; p<0.0001) and radiation exposure time(WMD, 25.4 seconds; 95% CI, 22.0 to 28.8 seconds, p<0.0001) than the open group (low-quality evidence). There were no significant differences in pain improvement, fusion rate, complications, or subsequent surgeries between the two treatment groups (low-quality evidence).

Conclusion

Although present findings are limited by insufficient evidence and there is a lack of adequately powered high-quality randomized controlled trials to address this gap in evidence, our results support that minimally invasive lumbar fusion is more effective than open fusion for adult spondylolisthesis and other spondylosis in terms of functional improvement, reducing infection rate, and decreasing blood loss and hospital stay.

Keywords: Minimally invasive, percutaneous pedicle screw, spinal fusion, lumbar spine, efficacy, meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pedicle screw instrumented fusion is used as a safe and effective treatment for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis and other spondylosis.12 However, it is associated with extensive blood loss, a lengthy hospital stay, signifcant cost, and high reoperation rates.34 Standard instrumented fusion requires extensive tissue dissection to expose entry points that provide the lateral-to-medial orientation for optimal screw trajectory. Extensive injury to the back muscles during surgery has been shown to correlate with poor long-term outcomes.56
To overcome these problems, minimally invasive instrumented fusion through small, separate wounds without extensive tissue dissection has been introduced.7 This technique significantly reduces back muscle injury and blood loss, which leads to better trunk muscle performance and faster recovery and rehabilitation.8 However, the potential benefts of minimized tissue disruption, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stay must be weighed against the increased rate of neurological complications associated with this technique.9 Moreover, hardware-related complications and pseudarthrosis have been reported in recent studies.1011
Evidence regarding the efficacy of minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion employing percutaneous pedicle screws exclusively for posterior augmentation has not been synthesized, while plenty of meta-analyses have explored mixed data from studies that utilized conventional pedicle screws for miniopen instrumentation as an alternative to percutaneous pedicle screws. The primary purpose of the current study was to investigate the efficacy of minimally invasive instrumented fusion for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis and other spondylosis. We compared minimally invasive and open pedicle screw instrumented lumbar fusion, especially with respect to 1) pain and functional improvements and fusion rate, 2) complications and subsequent surgeries, and 3) perioperative outcomes (blood loss, hospital stay, operation time, and radiation exposure time).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the literature according to the guidelines for performance and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses outlined in the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)12 and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA).13 This study was exempt from Institutional Review Board review. We searched the literature comparing minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion with open fusion, including transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), or posterolateral fusion (PLF), for the treatment of spondylolisthesis and other spondylosis. The literature searches were restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (or quasi-RCTs), and prospective cohort studies published in English. The searches were also limited to studies in which percutaneous pedicle screws were exclusively utilized for posterior spinal fixation in the intervention group. Studies with instrumented conventional pedicle screws instead of percutaneous pedicle screws and a mini-open approach were excluded. We also identified articles with overlapping populations and sought to determine the extent of overlap. In the case of substantial overlap (patients in one article were a subset of those in a larger study), the smaller study was excluded. Our detailed eligibility criteria are listed in Table 1.
For inclusion in the present analysis, studies must have reported the following primary outcomes: postoperative back pain and leg pain improvement measured via a visual analogue scale (VAS); functional improvement measured via Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score; fusion rate; complications (neurological, hardware-related, and surgical-site complications); subsequent surgeries (revision, removal, reoperation, and supplemental fixation); and perioperative outcomes (blood loss, length of hospital stay, operation time, and radiation exposure time)

Literature search and study selection

Two authors independently performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database for relevant studies published up to December 2017 using derivatives of the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): percutaneous pedicle screw, minimally invasive fusion, minimally invasive arthrodesis, mini-open fusion, miniopen arthrodesis, minimal access fusion, and minimal access arthrodesis. The detailed search strategy is illustrated in Supplementary Table 1 (only online). The reference lists of included articles were also systematically checked to identify additional eligible articles.
One reviewer (SOS) screened titles and abstracts to determine potential inclusion, with a 10% random sample of records independently screened by a second reviewer (SBL). Articles were double blind coded. Inclusion was subsequently confirmed by a team of three reviewers (SOS, SBL, and JWH) who independently checked the full text of all retrieved articles. Uncertainties and disagreements were resolved through team discussion and/or contact with study authors.

Data extraction and analysis

The study reviewers then used a custom data extraction form to extract relevant study data in duplicate. Data elements extracted included methodology data to confirm study eligibility, study design, patient demographics, performed interventions, outcomes of interest, statistical methods, and study results. One reviewer (SOS) then entered extracted data into a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 2013, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) with the accuracy of data entry confirmed by the second reviewer (SBL).
We pooled data from each included study and performed meta-analyses (both fixed-effect and random-effects methods) using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software package Version 2 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA) and STATA Version 14.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). The odds ratio (OR) for the intervention group and the accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI were calculated for continuous outcomes. We reported outcome measures according to the length of follow up: short (<1 year), intermediate (1 to 5 years), and long-term (≥5 years). Pain and functional improvements were analyzed using data from baseline to last follow-up. Fusion rate, complications, and subsequent surgeries were analyzed using data from the last follow-up visit.
The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol.1213 Five specific domains were used for grading study quality: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. We downgraded the evidence by 1 point when fewer than three domains were judged “serious or unclear” or when the study design was not an RCT. We downgraded the evidence by 2 points when four or more domains were judged “serious or unclear.”

Risk of bias

Two independent authors assessed the risk of bias and other major methodological flaws in the included studies using the checklist for RCTs1213 or the checklist for cohort studies by Cowley.14 We defned high-quality studies as those that fulfilled ≥6 of the 12 criteria for RCTs or ≥9 of the 17 criteria of Cowley. We downgraded the quality of evidence by 1 point when risk of bias was serious or when major methodological flaws were noted. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

Inconsistency

We evaluated statistical heterogeneity with the Q-test and I2 value. We defined substantial statistical heterogeneity as a Q-test with a p-value lower than 0.1 or an I2 value greater than 75%.1516 We downgraded the quality of evidence by 1 point when heterogeneity was substantial.

Indirectness

We assessed whether the question being addressed in this meta-analysis varied from the available evidence with regard to population, intervention, comparators, or outcomes.

Imprecision

Results were considered imprecise when trials included relatively few patients and few events and thus had wide CIs around the estimate of the effect.

Publication bias

We downgraded the quality of evidence by 1 point when a funnel plot suggested publication bias. The possibility of publication bias was not evaluated for statistical signifcance if a small number (<10) of studies was assessed.1317

RESULTS

We identifed 745 potentially relevant citations from the electronic database and reference searches after duplicates were eliminated. Sixty-seven studies were selected for full-text assessment after the initial title and abstract screening. Forty articles were excluded because of the study design (27 retrospective, 12 case series, and 1 unclear), and nine (including 1 RCT18) were excluded because open pedicle screws were used in the intervention group instead of percutaneous screws.
A total of 11 studies1920212223242526272829 met the inclusion criteria and two2028 were removed because of overlapping populations: 1) a study population published in 2009 by Peng, et al.28 was determined to be a subset of those in another study published in 2012 by Lee, et al.22 The prior study by Peng, et al.28 overlapped their case-enroll period with the later larger one by Lee, et al.22 Therefore, the study by Peng, et al.28 was excluded. 2) A subset of patients in the study published in 2014 by Wang, et al.20 were judged to be overlapped with those of two other studies published in 201026 and 201125 by the same authors. The other two studies2526 did not have overlapping populations with each other. Consequently, the study published in 2014 by Wang, et al.20 was excluded.
Finally, nine studies192122232425262729 were selected for analysis (Fig. 1). Characteristics of all included studies are summarized in Table 2 and Supplementary Table 2 (only online). A total of 707 participants (363 in the minimally invasive group and 344 in the open group) were included in the nine prospective cohort studies. Mean duration of follow-up was 22.2±6.8 months in the minimally invasive group and 24.1±7.6 months in the open group. Detailed demographic and surgical data at baseline are illustrated in Table 3. The baseline data were similar between the two groups (all p>0.05).

Quality assessment

All studies had a Cowley score of 9 or more, and we judged these studies to have a low risk of bias (Table 4). Serious inconsistency was noted in all perioperative outcome measures (blood loss, hospital stay, operation time, and radiation exposure time) with substantial heterogeneity (I2>75%, p<0.1). Serious imprecision was noted in the primary outcome measures for pain and functional improvement, as well as in all perioperative outcome measures (effect size of mean difference crosses 0.5). Publication bias was judged to be unclear because it could not be quantifed due to the small number of studies analyzed.
Based on the GRADE protocol, all studies suffered from methodological flaws (limitations in the design and implementation), leading us to downgrade their quality by 1 point (Table 5). We downgraded the evidence for primary outcomes of back pain, leg pain, and functional improvement by 2 points (low-quality evidence) because of study design and because two domains (imprecision and publication bias) were judged “serious or unclear.” The evidence for primary outcomes of fusion rate, complications, and subsequent surgeries was also downgraded by 2 points (low-quality evidence) because of the design and because one domain (publication bias) was judged “serious or unclear.” Moreover, the evidence for perioperative outcomes (blood loss, hospital stay, operation time, and radiation exposure time) was downgraded by 2 points (low quality evidence) because of the design and because three domains (inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias) were judged “serious or unclear.”

Pain and functional improvements

Low-quality evidence from five studies1922232526 revealed that improvement in VAS back pain score was not signifcantly different between the minimally invasive spinal fusion and open fusion groups (WMD, 0.2; 95% CI, −0.2–0.6; p=0.3; mean follow-up, 20.9±7.2 months). Likewise, low-quality evidence from two studies1922 revealed that improvement in VAS leg pain score did not differ significantly between the two groups (WMD, 0.3; 95% CI, −0.5–1.0; p=0.5; mean follow-up, 25.2±2.0 months). In contrast, there was low-quality evidence from five studies1922232526 in which the minimally invasive group had significantly greater improvement in ODI score than the open group (WMD, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.5–5.0; p=0.0003; mean follow-up, 24.2±4.8 months)(Fig. 2). The detailed clinical outcome scores of all included studies are summarized in Supplementary Tables 3 and 4 (only online).

Fusion rate

Fusion rates were reported in all studies, with overall rates of 96.7% in the minimally invasive group (351/363 patients; mean follow-up, 22.2±6.8 months) and 97.4% in the open group (335/344 patients; mean follow-up, 24.1±7.6 months) (Supplementary Tables 5 and 6, only online). Eight of nine studies were eligible for the meta-analysis; one study was not eligible because the fusion rate was 100% in both groups.19 We found low-quality evidence from eight studies in which there was no statistically signifcant difference in the overall fusion rate between the two groups (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.3–2.1; p=0.7). Low-quality evidence was obtained from subgroup analyses according to the fusion method (5 studies for TLIF,2122252627 two studies for PLIF,2329 and a single study for PLF24), which revealed no significant difference in the fusion rate between the two groups (Fig. 3).

Complications

The detailed complications of all included studies are summarized in Supplementary Table 7 (only online).

Neurological complications

Seven studies19212223252627 addressed neurological complications, including dural tear, CSF leakage, nerve root injury, and postoperative radiculopathy (Table 6). The overall rates of neurological complications were 4.5% in the minimally invasive group (13/288 patients; mean follow-up, 22.3±5.3 months) and 4.7% in the open group (13/278 patients; mean follow-up, 23.5±3.2 months). We found low-quality evidence from these studies that there was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of neurological complications between the two groups (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4–1.8; p=0.7) (Figure 4).

Hardware complications

Six studies192122,262729 described hardware-related complications, including screw malposition, screw loosening, screw breakage, overlong screw, cage migration, cage fracture, and graft dislodgement (Table 6). The overall rates of hardware complications were 5.4% in the minimally invasive group (14/258 patients; mean follow-up, 21.8±5.4 months) and 3.6% in the open group (9/250 patients; mean follow-up, 22.3±5.2 months). There was low-quality evidence that the overall rate of hardware complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5–2.6; p=0.7) (Fig. 4).

Surgical-site complications

Seven studies19212223252629 reported surgical-site complications, including surgical-site infection, superficial infection, deep infection, and hematoma (Table 6). The overall rates of surgical-site complications were 1.7% in the minimally invasive group (5/302 patients; mean follow-up, 20.9±6.9 months) and 4.5% in the open group (13/289 patients; mean follow-up, 22.6±4.0 months). Low-quality evidence from these seven studies revealed that the overall rate of surgical-site complications did not differ signifcantly between the two groups (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2–1.1; p=0.1) (Fig. 4). The overall rates of infection (including surgical-site infection, superfcial infection, and deep wound infection) were 1.2% in the minimally invasive group (3/260 patients; mean follow-up, 19.9±6.7 months) and 5.3% in the open group (13/246 patients; mean follow-up, 21.0±5.4 months). There was low-quality evidence from six studies192122232529 in which the minimally invasive group had a significantly lower rate of infection than the open group (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1–0.9; p=0.02) (Fig. 5).

Subsequent surgeries

Six studies included information about subsequent surgeries,192223262729 and a total of 493 patients (251 in the minimally invasive group and 242 in the open group) were analyzed (Table 6). We found low-quality evidence suggesting that the overall rate of subsequent surgeries did not differ significantly between the two groups (4.4% in the percutaneous group and 3.7% in the open group; OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4–2.3; p=0.9; mean follow-up, 20.2±6.8 months). Revisions, removals, and reoperations were also analyzed in four studies,19222629 three studies,232729 and four studies,19222629 respectively. The overall rates of revisions were 2.6% in the minimally invasive group (5/196 patients; mean follow-up, 21.9±6.8 months) and 1.0% in the open group (2/194 patients; mean follow-up, 21.9±6.8 months). Overall, 3.4% underwent removals in the minimally invasive group (3/87 patients; mean follow-up, 15.2±5.9 months) and 3.9% in the open group (3/77 patients; mean follow-up, 18.2±6.0 months). The overall rates of reoperations were 1.5% in the minimally invasive group (3/196 patients; mean follow-up, 21.9±6.8 months) and 2.1% in the open group (4/194 patients; mean follow-up, 21.9±6.8 months). Low-quality evidence revealed that the two groups did not differ significantly in rates of revision (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.3–4.5; p=0.9), removal (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.2–11.8; p=0.8), and reoperation (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.1–3.5; p=0.6) (Fig. 6)

Perioperative outcomes

The detailed perioperative outcome data are summarized in Supplementary Tables 8, 9, and 10 (only online).

Blood loss

Six studies192122252629 reported estimated blood loss during surgery, with 265 patients in the minimally invasive group and 259 in the open group. Low-quality evidence indicated that the minimally invasive group had significantly less blood loss than the open group (WMD, 269.5 mL; 95% CI, 246.2–292.9 mL; p<0.0001) (Fig. 7).

Hospital stay

Six studies192122232629 reported length of hospital stay, with 277 patients in the minimally invasive group and 262 in the open group. Low-quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive group had a significantly shorter hospital stay than the open group (WMD, 1.3 days; 95% CI, 1.1–1.5 days; p<0.0001)(Fig. 8).

Operation time

Seven studies19212224252629 reported operation time, with 302 patients in the minimally invasive group and 289 in the open group. There was low-quality evidence indicating that the minimally invasive group had a significantly longer operation time than the open group (WMD, 21.0 minutes; 95% CI, 15.9–26.2 minutes; p<0.0001) (Fig. 8).

Radiation exposure time

Four studies21222526 reported radiation exposure time, with 183 patients in the minimally invasive group and 180 in the open group. Low-quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive group had a significantly longer radiation exposure time than the open group (WMD, 25.4 seconds; 95% CI, 22.0–28.8 seconds; p<0.0001) (Fig. 8).

DISCUSSION

This meta-analysis highlights low-quality evidence that indicates minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion for the treatment of adult spondylolisthesis and spondylosis is more effective than open fusion with regard to functional improvement and reduced infection rate in the intermediate term. The two fusion methods showed similar results in terms of pain relief, fusion rate, complications, and subsequent surgeries, although the evidence was low quality. In addition, we noted low-quality evidence indicating that minimally invasive fusion is associated with decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay, but was less advantageous in terms of operation time and radiation exposure time than open fusion.
Although screw- or cage-related nerve root injuries and secondary radiculopathies were reported, most studies indicated resolution of any neurological deficits and pain with subsequent surgery. These complications also showed an equivalent incidence with open fusion. There were no reports of visceral or vascular injury associated with percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation. Significant reduction of paraspinal muscle injury via minimally invasive surgery and subsequent preservation of trunk muscle performance are thought to result in greater functional improvement, a lower risk of infection, and better perioperative surgical outcomes (less blood loss, quicker recovery, and shorter hospital stay).
To our knowledge, this study is the first systematic review evaluating the efficacy of minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion exclusively employing percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation. The strengths of our study include the exhaustive search strategy, reproducible protocols, and strict adherence to systematic review methodology. The use of standardized and validated data collection and extraction tools limited bias and increased inter-rater reliability.
The major limitations of the present study are the lack of RCTs and the small number of included articles. These weaknesses prevented synthesis of higher-quality evidence. In particular, there were very few studies comparing multi-level instrumented fusion in adult spondylosis patients. Overall, the quality of the evidence was “low” in our comparison of primary outcomes between minimally invasive fusion and open fusion. The magnitude of the effect sizes was small. All studies had attrition bias with no reported number of dropouts, and the mean follow-up duration was less than two years.
Another weakness was variation in the type of arthrodesis (e.g., TLIF, PLIF, or PLF) and bone graft material (e.g., local autogenous bone, autogenous iliac crest bone, or synthetic bone extensor). Variation in preoperative diagnosis (e.g., spondylolisthesis, other spondylosis, and mixed diagnoses) and fusion assessment methods was another drawback of this analysis. Computed tomography (CT) to evaluate screw placement was not routinely performed in all studies. The scarcity of CT imaging data may have led to underestimation of screw malposition, implant loosening, implant breakage, and pseudarthrosis in the reviewed studies.
On intermediate-term follow-up, our results showed low-quality evidence that percutaneous pedicle screw instrumented fusion is more effective at improving ODI score, reducing infection rate, and decreasing blood loss and hospital stay, but less effective at reducing operation and radiation exposure time than open fusion. Furthermore, the two methods were comparable with regard to pain relief, fusion rate, complications, and subsequent surgeries based on low-quality evidence. Several methodological flaws and weaknesses limited the reported results. In particular, there were no well-designed RCTs from which to synthesize high-quality evidence.
The ambiguity in these findings could lead to major alterations of the results derived from our analyses and highlights the need for adequately powered RCTs that will assess the long-term efficacy of minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. Future studies should compare subgroups based on fusion modality (e.g., TLIF, PLIF, PLF), spine disorder (e.g., spondylolisthesis, other spondylosis, deformity, trauma), and surgery level (e.g., single or multi-level fusion).
Although the findings are limited by insufficient evidence and lack of adequately powered high-quality RCTs to address this gap in evidence, our results support that minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion is more effective than open fusion for adult spondylolisthesis and other spondylosis in terms of functional improvement, reducing infection rate, and decreasing blood loss and hospital stay.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank Hyun-Sun Lim, MS, PhD for her great support of statistical expertise in the data analyses.

Notes

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

References

1. Gaines RW Jr. The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82-A:1458–1476. PMID: 11057475.
crossref
2. Yuan HA, Garfin SR, Dickman CA, Mardjetko SM. A historical cohort study of pedicle screw fixation in thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spinal fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(20 Suppl):2279S–2296S. PMID: 7817243.
3. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, Hansen ES, Fruensgaard S, Bünger CE. 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. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997; 22:2813–2822. PMID: 9431617.
4. Bjarke Christensen F, Stender Hansen E, Laursen M, Thomsen K, Bünger CE. Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion: randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27:1269–1277. PMID: 12065973.
5. Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljärvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A. Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18:575–581. PMID: 8484148.
crossref
6. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B, Alaranta H, Nykvist F, Lehto M, et al. The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18:568–574. PMID: 8484147.
crossref
7. Foley KT, Gupta SK. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg. 2002; 97(1 Suppl):7–12. PMID: 12120655.
crossref
8. Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30:123–129. PMID: 15626992.
9. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int. 2010; 1:12. PMID: 20657693.
crossref
10. Sclafani JA, Kim CW. Complications associated with the initial learning curve of minimally invasive spine surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472:1711–1717. PMID: 24510358.
crossref
11. Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Sung NY. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and degenerative spondylosis: 5-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472:1813–1823. PMID: 23955260.
crossref
12. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000; 283:2008–2012. PMID: 10789670.
13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62:1006–1012. PMID: 19631508.
crossref
14. Cowley DE. Prostheses for primary total hip replacement. A critical appraisal of the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995; 11:770–778. PMID: 8567209.
15. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21:1539–1558. PMID: 12111919.
crossref
16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327:557–560. PMID: 12958120.
crossref
17. Harbord RM, Harris RJ, Sterne JA. Updated tests for small-study effects in meta-analyses. Stata J. 2009; 9:197–210.
crossref
18. Wang HL, Lü FZ, Jiang JY, Ma X, Xia XL, Wang LX. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl). 2011; 124:3868–3874. PMID: 22340311.
19. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2014; 82:230–238. PMID: 23321379.
crossref
20. Wang J, Zhou Y, Feng Zhang Z, Qing Li C, Jie Zheng W, Liu J. Comparison of the clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014; 27:202–206. PMID: 22614266.
crossref
21. Gu G, Zhang H, Fan G, He S, Cai X, Shen X, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop. 2014; 38:817–824. PMID: 24240484.
crossref
22. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21:2265–2270. PMID: 22453894.
crossref
23. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci. 2012; 19:829–835. PMID: 22459184.
crossref
24. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21:1171–1177. PMID: 22173610.
crossref
25. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20:623–628. PMID: 20927557.
crossref
26. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010; 19:1780–1784. PMID: 20411281.
crossref
27. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009; 33:1683–1688. PMID: 19023571.
crossref
28. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34:1385–1389. PMID: 19478658.
crossref
29. Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32:537–543. PMID: 17334287.
crossref

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary Table 1

Search Strategies for PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library
ymj-59-524-s001.pdf

Supplementary Table 2

Characteristics of all prospective comparative studies*
ymj-59-524-s002.pdf

Supplementary Table 3

Clinical outcome scores in the prospective comparative studies*
ymj-59-524-s003.pdf

Supplementary Table 4

Clinical outcome scores in the prospective comparative studies*
ymj-59-524-s004.pdf

Supplementary Table 5

Fusion rate in the prospective comparative studies*
ymj-59-524-s005.pdf

Supplementary Table 6

Subgroup analysis of fusion rate*
ymj-59-524-s006.pdf

Supplementary Table 7

Complications in the prospective comparative studies
ymj-59-524-s007.pdf

Supplementary Table 8

Perioperative surgical data in the prospective comparative studies*
ymj-59-524-s008.pdf

Supplementary Table 9

Perioperative surgical data
ymj-59-524-s009.pdf

Supplementary Table 10

Subgroup analysis of perioperative surgical data according to the fusion methods*
ymj-59-524-s010.pdf
Fig. 1

Flow diagram demonstrating the individual steps in the literature-selection process.

ymj-59-524-g001
Fig. 2

Comparisons of ODI scores for functional improvement and VAS scores for back pain and leg pain between minimally invasive and open lumbar spinal fusion. Heterogeneity: ODI score [τ2=0.000; χ2=2.549, df=4 (p=0.636); I2=0.0%], VAS back pain [τ2=0.000; χ2=1.192, df=4 (p=0.879); I2=0.0%], and VAS leg pain [τ2=0.000; χ2=0.748, df=1 (p=0.387); I2=0.0%]. ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; VAS, visual analogue scale; df, degrees of freedom; CI, confidence interval.

ymj-59-524-g002
Fig. 3

Comparison of fusion rates between minimally invasive and open lumbar spinal fusion. Heterogeneity: fusion rates for PLF [τ2=0.000; χ2=0.000, df=0 (p=1.000); I2=0.0%], fusion rates for PLIF [τ2=0.000; χ2=0.701, df=1 (p=0.402); I2=0.0%], fusion rates for TLIF [τ2=0.000; χ2=1.836, df=4 (p=0.766); I2=0.0%], and overall fusion rates [τ2=0.000; χ2=3.925, df=7 (p=0.788); I2=0.0%]. PLF, posterolateral fusion; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; df, degrees of freedom; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

ymj-59-524-g003
Fig. 4

Comparison of complications rates (hardware-related, neurological, and surgical-site complications) between minimally invasive and open lumbar spinal fusion. Heterogeneity: hardware-related complications [τ2=0.000; χ2=4.922, df=10 (p=0.896); I2=0.0%], neurological complications [τ2=0.000; χ2=3.909, df=9 (p=0.917); I2=0.0%], surgical-site complications [τ2=0.000; χ2=5.232, df=8 (p=0.732); I2=0.0%], and overall complication rates [τ2=0.000; χ2=16.605, df=29 (p=0.968); I2=0.0%]. df, degrees of freedom; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

ymj-59-524-g004
Fig. 5

Comparison of infection rates between minimally invasive and open lumbar spinal fusion. Heterogeneity: τ2=0.000; χ2=2.197, df=6 (p=0.901); I2=0.0%. df, degrees of freedom; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.

ymj-59-524-g005
Fig. 6

Comparison of subsequent surgery rates between minimally invasive and open lumbar spinal fusion. Heterogeneity: Removal [τ2=1.204; χ2=2.938, df=2 (p=0.230); I2=31.9%], reoperation [τ2=0.774; χ2=3.965, df=3 (p=0.265); I2=24.3%], revision [τ2=0.000; χ2=1.154, df=3 (p=0.764); I2=0.0%], overall subsequent surgery rates [τ2=0.000; χ2=8.565, df=10 (p=0.574); I2=0.0%]. df, degrees of freedom; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

ymj-59-524-g006
Fig. 7

Comparison of blood loss between minimally invasive and open lumbar spinal fusion. Heterogeneity: τ2=0.747; χ2=57.666, df=5 (p<0.0001); I2=91.3%. df, degrees of freedom; CI, confidence interval.

ymj-59-524-g007
Fig. 8

Comparison of hospital stay, operation time, and radiation exposure time between minimally invasive and open lumbar spinal fusion. Heterogeneity: hospital stay [τ2=0.236; χ2=26.011, df=5 (p<0.0001); I2=80.8%], operation time [τ2=0.297; χ2=40.069, df=6 (p<0.0001); I2=85.0%], and radiation exposure time [τ2=0.240; χ2=14.309, df=3 (p=0.003); I2=79.0%]. df, degrees of freedom; CI, confidence interval.

ymj-59-524-g008
Table 1

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

ymj-59-524-i001
Study components Inclusion Exclusion
Participants Adults Children (age ≤18 years)
Pathology A pathology of spondylolisthesis, spondylosis (degenerative disease) A pathology of deformity, trauma, infection, inflammatory disease, or tumor
Interventions Posterior lumbar/lumbosacral spinal fusion (including transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion) utilizing percutaneous pedicle screw fixation Decompression only without fusion
Fusions extended to cervical and thoracic spine
Stand-alone anterior or posterior fusion
Presacral (axial) anterior fusion
Posterior instrumentation with facet screws or interspinous process devices
Unilateral instrumentation
Robot-assisted instrumentation
Mini-open instrumentation*
Mixed instrumentation
Comparator Conventional open pedicle screw instrumented fusion
Study outcomes Clinical outcomes for pain and function, fusion rate, subsequent surgery, complications, and perioperative surgical data Other radiographic measures (excluding fusion): alignment, range of motion, etc.
Nonclinical outcomes
Study design Randomized controlled trials Retrospective cohort studies
Controlled clinical trials Case-control studies
Prospective cohort studies Case series
Case reports
Nonclinical studies
Publication Studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals Abstracts, editorials, letters
Duplicate publications of the same study that do not report on different outcomes
Single-center reports from multicenter trials
Studies reporting on the technical aspects of the surgery
White papers or narrative reviews
Articles identified as preliminary reports when results are published in later versions

*Conventional pedicle screws were instrumented through a mini-open approach without use of percutaneous pedicle screw systems.

Table 2

Characteristics of All Included Comparative Observational Studies

ymj-59-524-i002
Studies Study design, year published, year enrollment, intervention Comparison group N Age (yr) Gender Male (%) Fusion level Diagnoses (number of patients in percutaneous group, open group) Instrumentations including cage and pedicle screw Bone graft Follow-up (month)
Parker, et al.19 Prospective cohort study, 2014, NR, Single-level TLIF Minimally invasive group 50 53.5±12.5 16 (32) L3–4; 4 Degenerative spondylolisthesis grade I (50, 50) A single PEEK interbody cage and percutaneous pedicle screw system (implants NR) Local autogenous bone with or without bone extensors (i.e., DBM) 24, % followed: NR
L4–5; 32
L5–S1; 14
Open group 50 52.6±11.6 18 (36) L3–4; 3 A single PEEK interbody cage and conventional pedicle screw system (implants NR) Local autogenous bone with or without bone extensors (i.e., DBM) 24, % followed: NR
L4–5; 30
L5–S1; 17
Gu, et al.21 Prospective cohort study, 2013, 2010–2011, Two-level TLIF Minimally invasive group 44 66.4±6.7 19 (43.2) L3–5; 13 Degenerative disc disease (15, 11)
Spinal stenosis (18, 14)
Spinal stenosis with segmental instability (11, 13)		 A single PEEK interbody cage (Capstone; Medtronic, Memphis, TN, USA) and percutaneous pedicle screw system (Sextant; Medtronic) Local autologous bone 20.6±4.5, % followed: NR
L4–S1; 31
Open group 38 64.1±7.8 15 (39.5) L3–5; 14 NR NR 20.0±3.3, % followed: NR
L4–S1; 24
Lee, et al.22 Prospective cohort study, 2012, 2002–2008, Single-level TLIF Minimally invasive group 72 52.2±13.8 20 (27.8) L3–4; 6 Spondylolisthesis (Grade 1 and 2)
Recurrent disc herniation
Spinal stenosis requiring resection of more than 50% of either facet joint		 A single PEEK interbody cage (Capstone; Medtronic) and percutaneous pedicle screw system (Sextant; Medtronic) Local autogenous bone with DBM (Osteofil; Medtronic) 24, 95.8% (69/72) followed for 24 months
L4–5; 49
L5–S1; 17
Open group 72 56.6±14.6 22 (30.6) L3–4; 4 Degenerated collapsed disc requiring disc-space height restoration (Specific number; NR) A single PEEK interbody cage (Capstone; Medtronic) and conventional pedicle screw system (implants NR) Local autogenous bone with DBM (Osteofil; Medtronic) and one case with rhBMP-2 (Infuse; Medtronic) 24, 91.7% (66/72) followed for 24 months
L4–5; 54
L5–S1; 14
Mobbs, et al.23 Prospective cohort study, 2011, 2006–2010, Single- or multi-level PLIF Minimally invasive group 37 68.56±12.99 19 (51.4) T11–12; 0 Isthmic spondylolisthesis (4, 9)
Degenerative spondylolisthesis (18, 9)
Degenerative scoliosis (1, 4)
Degenerative disc disease with foraminal stenosis (14, 8)		 A single rotatable interbody cage (implants NR) and percutaneous pedicle screw systems (Denali/ Serengeti system; K2M, Leesburg, VA, USA and MANTIS; Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) Local autogenous bone with or without synthetic bone 11.5 (5.4–20.1), % followed: NR
L2–3; 1
L3–4; 2
L4–5; 20
L5–S1; 6
Multi-level; 8
Open group 30 67.48±13.19 16 (53.3) T11–12; 1 A single rotatable interbody cage and conventional pedicle screw system (implants NR) Local autogenous bone with or without synthetic bone 18.7 (8.1–40.0), % followed: NR
L2–3; 0
L3–4; 0
L4–5; 15
L5–S1; 9
Multi-level; 5
Kotani, et al.24 Prospective cohort study, 2011, 2005–NR, Single-level PLF Minimally invasive group 43 63±9 14 (32.6) L3–4; 4 Degenerative spondylolisthesis (43, 37) Percutaneous pedicle screw system (Sextant; Medtronic) Autogenous posterior iliac crest bone 32 (24–49), % followed: NR
Open group 37 66±9 12 (32.4) L4–5; 76 (no specific declaration between groups) Conventional polyaxial pedicle screw and rod system (implants NR) Autogenous posterior iliac crest bone 40 (24–60), % followed: NR
Wang, et al.25 Prospective cohort study, 2011, 2006–2008, Single- or two-level TLIF Minimally invasive group 25 54.8±10.9 13 (52.0) L3–4; 2 Recurrent disc herniation (7, 8)
Postsurgical foraminal stenosis (10, 9)
Postsurgical segmental instability (5, 7)
Postsurgical spondylolisthesis grade 1 (3, 3)		 A single PEEK interbody cage (OIC; Stryker) and percutaneous pedicle screw system (Sextant; Medtronic) Local autogenous bone with or without autogenous iliac crest bone Overall, 27.5 (12–38), % followed: NR
L4–5; 11
L5–S1; 9
Two-level; 3
Open group 27 56.2±13.6 15 (55.6) L3–4; 2 A single PEEK interbody cage (OIC; Stryker) and conventional pedicle screw system (implants NR) NR
L4–5; 11
L5–S1; 10
Two-level; 4
Wang, et al.26 Prospective cohort study, 2010, 2006–2008, Single-level TLIF Minimally invasive group 42 47.9±8.5 13 (30.1) L3–4; 3 Degenerative spondylolisthesis (24, 22) A single PEEK interbody cage (OIC, Stryker) and percutaneous pedicle screw system (Sextant; Medtronic) Local autogenous bone Overall, 26.3 (13–35), % followed: NR
L4–5; 21
L5–S1; 18
Open group 43 53.2±10.6 16 (37.2) L3–4; 3 Isthmic spondylolisthesis (18, 21) NR NR
L4–5; 23
L5–S1; 17
Schizas, et al.27 Prospective cohort study, 2008, NR, Single-level TLIF Minimally invasive group 18 45.5±NR NR L5–S1; 12 Isthmic spondylolisthesis (15, 6)
Degenerative disc disease with foraminal stenosis (2, 12)
Iatrogenic spondylolysis (1, 0)		 A single PEEK interbody cage (Medtronic) and percutaneous pedicle screw system [Sextant (11 cases); Medtronic and Viper (7 cases); DePuy Spine, USA] Local autologous bone with autogenous iliac crest bone 22, % followed: NR
Other level (specific level;NR); 6
Open group 18 48.1±NR NR L5–S1; 11 NR Local autologous bone with autogenous iliac crest bone 24, % followed: NR
Other level (specific level; NR); 7
Park and Ha29 Prospective cohort study, 2007, 2003–2004, Single-level PLIF Minimally invasive group 32 62.1±9.6 8 (25) L3–4; 2 Isthmic spondylolisthesis (6, 7)
Degenerative spondylolisthesis (7, 5)
Lumbar disc herniation (1, 3)		 A single PEEK interbody cage (Telamon; Medtronic) and percutaneous pedicle screw system (Sextant; Medtronic) Local autogenous bone 12, % followed: NR
L4–5; 23
L5–S1; 7
Open group 29 59.0±12.2 13 (44.8) L3–4; 3 Spinal stenosis with segmental instability (18, 14) A single PEEK interbody cage (Telamon; Medtronic) and conventional pedicle screw system (implants NR) Local autogenous bone 12, % followed: NR
L4–5; 18
L5–S1; 8

TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; PLF, posterolateral fusion; PEEK, polyetheretherketone; NR, not reported; DBM, demineralized bone matrix, and rhBMP-2, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2.

Table 3

Demographic and Surgical Data between the Two Surgical Groups

ymj-59-524-i003
Overall Minimally invasive group Open group
Number of patients 363 344
Age (yr) 57.1±8.2 58.1±6.6
Gender, male (%) 122 (33.6) 127 (36.9)
Diagnosis
Spondylolisthesis (low-grade) 188 169
 Degenerative 142 123
 sthmic 43 43
 Postsurgical 3 3
Other spondylosis 103 103
 Degenerative disc disease 15 11
 Lumbar disc herniation 1 3
 Spinal stenosis 18 14
 Foraminal stenosis 16 20
 Spinal stenosis with segmental instability 29 27
 Recurrent lumbar disc herniation 7 8
 Postsurgical foraminal stenosis 10 9
 Postsurgical segmental instability 5 7
 Degenerative scoliosis 1 4
 Iatrogenic spondylolysis 1 0
Number of each separate diagnosis NR 72 72
Fusion modalities
 TLIF 251 248
  Single-level 204 206
  Two-level 47 42
 PLIF 69 59
  Single-level 61 54
  Multi-level 8 5
 PLF
  Single-level 43 37
Fusion level
 Single-level 308 297
  T11–12 0 1
  L2–3 1 0
  L3–4 19 15
  L4–5 156 151
  L5–S1 83 86
  Level NR 49 44
 Two-level 47 42
  L3–L5 13 14
  L4–S1 31 24
  Level NR 3 4
 Multi-level
  Level NR 8 5
Follow-up periods 22.2±6.8 24.1±7.6

TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; PLF, posterolateral fusion; NR, not reported.

The differences of all baseline data were not significant. p>0.05.

Table 4

Risk of Bias Assessment of Included Comparative Observational Studies

ymj-59-524-i004
Parker, et al.19 Gu, et al.21 Lee , et al.22 Mobbs, et al.23 Kotani, et al.24 Wang, et al.25 Wang, et al.26 Schizas, et al.27 Park and Ha29
1 Method of selection of patients identified and appropriateness Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Number of patients deceased or lost to follow-up reported or included in appropriate statistical analysis No No Yes No No No No No No
3 Follow-up period range and mean given (minimum=n) Unclear Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear
4 Prosthesis models specified No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5 Clearly defined criteria for measuring outcomes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6 Valid statistical analysis undertaken Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
7 Data given for deceased patients (information) No No Yes No No No No No No
8 Age range and mean age reported Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
9 Numbers of males and females given Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
10 Weight range and mean weight given No No No No No No No No Yes
11 Preoperative diagnoses with percentages of patients given Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
12 Clinical evaluation independent of operating surgeon Yes Unclear Yes Unclear Unclear No No Unclear Unclear
13 Radiological evaluation independent and blinded to clinical results No Yes Yes Yes Unclear Yes Yes Unclear Unclear
14 Results given for specific models No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
15 Quantification of outcomes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
16 Follow-up data compared with preoperative data (mean and range) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
17 Independence of investigators (no vested interest) stated No Yes No Unclear Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Scores 9 13 14 12 12 13 13 9 11

A positive answer (Yes) to any question counts as 1 point.

Table 5

The Quality Assessment of Evidence for Each Outcome

ymj-59-524-i005
Number of studies Study design Risk of bias* Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication bias‡‡ Quality
Back pain improvement: 5 No RCTs No serious No serious† No serious Serious** Unclear Low
Leg pain improvement: 2 No RCTs No serious No serious† No serious Serious** Unclear Low
Functional improvement: 5 No RCTs No serious No serious† No serious Serious** Unclear Low
Fusion rate: 8 No RCTs No serious No serious† No serious No serious†† Unclear Low
Neurological complications: 7 No RCTs No serious No serious† No serious No serious†† Unclear Low
Harware complications: 6 No RCTs No serious No serious† No serious No serious†† Unclear Low
Surgical-site complications: 7 No RCTs No serious No serious† No serious No serious†† Unclear Low
Subsequent surgeries: 6 No RCTs No serious No serious† No serious No serious†† Unclear Low
Blood loss: 6 No RCTs No serious Serious‡ No serious Serious** Unclear Low
Hospital stay: 6 No RCTs No serious Serious§ No serious Serious** Unclear Low
Operation time: 7 No RCTs No serious Serious∥ No serious Serious** Unclear Low
Radiation exposure time: 4 No RCTs No serious Serious No serious Serious** Unclear Low

RCTs, randomized controlled trials; df, degrees of freedom.

*All studies fulfilled 9 or more criteria of checklist by Cowley and these studies were judged at low risk of bias, †Heterogeneity: I2=0%, ‡Heterogeneity: χ2=89.096, df=5 (p<0.0001); I2=94.4%, §Heterogeneity: χ2=91.483, df=5 (p<0.0001); I2=94.5%, ∥Heterogeneity: χ2=42.123, df=6 (p<0.0001); I2=85.8%, Heterogeneity: χ2=44.986, df=3 (p<0.0001); I2=93.3%, **Weighted mean difference effect size crosses 0.5, ††Odds ratio effect size did not cross 2.5, ‡‡Publication bias was not calculated due to the small number of studies analyzed.

Table 6

Complications and Subsequent Surgeries between the Two Surgical Groups

ymj-59-524-i006
Outcomes N of studies Minimally invasive group Open group OR (95% CI)
N of OR events (%) Total N of patients N of events (%) Total N of patients
Surgical-site complications
 Overall 7 5 (1.7) 302 13 (4.5) 289 0.4 (0.2 to 1.1)
 Infection 6 3 (1.2) 260 13 (5.3) 246 0.3 (0.1 to 0.9)*
  Surgical-site infection 3 0 (0.0) 159 5 (3.3) 152 0.2 (0.02 to 0.9)†
  Superficial wound infection 3 2 (2.0) 101 7 (7.4) 94 0.3 (0.02 to 1.4)
  Deep wound infection 1 1 (3.1) 32 1 (3.4) 29 0.9 (0.05 to 15.1)
 Hematoma 2 2 (2.5) 79 0 (0.0) 73 2.8 (0.3 to 27.6)
Neurological complications
 Overall 7 13 (4.5) 288 13 (4.7) 278 0.8 (0.4 to 1.8)
 Dural tear/CSF leak 7 12 (4.2) 288 11 (4.0) 278 0.9 (0.4 to 2.1)
 Nerve root injury (L5 root paresis) 1 1 (5.6) 18 0 (0.0) 18 3.2 (0.1 to 83.2)
 Postoperative radiculopathy (transient L3 radicular pain) 2 0 (0.0) 55 2 (4.2) 48 0.3 (0.03 to 2.9)
Hardware complications
 Overall 6 14 (5.4) 258 9 (3.6) 250 1.2 (0.5 to 2.6)
 Screw-related complications 6 8 (3.1) 258 2 (0.8) 250 1.8 (0.6 to 5.8)
  Screw malposition 4 4 (2.0) 196 2 (1.0) 194 1.1 (0.3 to 5.1)
  Screw loosening 1 2 (11.1) 18 0 (0.0) 18 5.6 (0.3 to 125.4)
  Screw breakage 1 1 (5.6) 18 0 (0.0) 18 3.2 (0.1 to 83.2)
  Overlong screw 1 1 (2.3) 44 0 (0.0) 38 2.7 (0.1 to 67.1)
 Cage-related complications 3 5 (4.1) 122 7 (5.9) 119 0.7 (0.2 to 2.2)
  Cage migration 2 5 (4.8) 104 6 (5.9) 101 0.8 (0.2 to 2.7)
  Cage fracture during insertion 1 0 (0.0) 18 1 (5.6) 18 0.3 (0.01 to 8.3)
 Graft dislodgement 1 1 (2.4) 42 0 (0.0) 43 3.1 (0.1 to 79.4)
Pseudarthrosis 9 12 (3.3) 363 9 (2.6) 344 1.2 (0.5 to 2.9)
Other complications
 Overall 3 3 (2.4) 127 7 (5.8) 120 0.6 (0.2 to 1.9)
 Deep vein thrombosis 1 0 (0.0) 37 1 (3.3) 30 0.3 (0.01 to 6.7)
 Myocardial infarction 1 0 (0.0) 72 1 (1.4) 72 0.3 (0.01 to 8.2)
 Pneumonia 1 1 (1.4) 72 1 (1.4) 72 1.0 (0.06 to 16.3)
 Paralytic ileus 1 0 (0.0) 37 3 (10) 30 0.1 (0.005 to 2.1)
 Urinary tract infection 1 1 (2.7) 37 0 (0.0) 30 2.5 (0.1 to 63.8)
 Postoperative anemia 1 0 (0.0) 72 1 (1.4) 72 0.3 (0.01 to 8.2)
 Brachial plexus injury due to positioning 1 1 (5.6) 18 0 (0.0) 18 3.2 (0.1 to 83.2)
Subsequent surgeries‡
 Overall 6 11 (4.4) 251 9 (3.7) 242 0.9 (0.4 to 2.3)
 Revision 4 5 (2.6) 196 2 (1.0) 194 1.1 (0.3 to 4.5)
  Revision for malpositioned screw 4 4 (2.0) 196 2 (1.0) 194
  Revision for migrated cage 1 1 (3.1) 32 0 (0.0) 29
 Removal for pseudarthrosis 3 3 (3.4) 87 3 (3.9) 77 1.3 (0.2 to 7.9)
 Reoperation 4 3 (1.5) 196 4 (2.1) 194 0.6 (0.1 to 2.8)
  Reoperation for graft dislodgement 1 1 (2.4) 42 0 (0.0) 43
  Reoperation for surgical-site infection 2 0 (0.0) 122 3 (2.5) 122
  Reoperation for deep wound infection 1 1 (3.1) 32 1 (3.4) 29
  Reoperation for hematoma 1 1 (2.4) 42 0 (0.0) 43
 Supplemental fixation 0 0 (0.0) 0 0 (0.0) 0

N, number; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid.

*p=0.02, †p=0.04, ‡Complications lead to a subsequent surgical intervention. Subsequent surgical intervention was categorized as follows: a revision is a procedure that adjusts or in any way modifies or removes part of the original implant configuration, with or without replacement of a component; a revision may also include adjusting the position of the original configuration (revision for migrated cage, removal of screws, etc.). A removal is a procedure where all of the original system configuration are removed with or without replacement (removal for pain at operative site but after fusion, for pseudarthrosis, etc.). A reoperation is any surgical procedure at the involved level(s) that does not removal, modification, or addition of any components to the system. A supplemental fixation is a procedure in which additional instrumentation not under study in the protocol is implanted.

TOOLS
Similar articles