| Title |
Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-015-3903-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kevin Phan, Prashanth J. Rao, Andrew C. Kam, Ralph J. Mobbs |
| Abstract |
While open TLIF (O-TLIF) remains the mainstay approach, minimally invasive TLIF (MI-TLIF) may offer potential advantages of reduced trauma to paraspinal muscles, minimized perioperative blood loss, quicker recovery and reduced risk of infection at surgical sites. This meta-analysis was conducted to provide an updated assessment of the relative benefits and risks of MI-TLIF versus O-TLIF. Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to December 2014. Relevant studies comparing MI-TLIF and O-TLIF were included. Data were extracted and analysed according to predefined clinical end points. There was no significant difference in operation time noted between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF cohorts. The median intraoperative blood loss for MI-TLIF was significantly lower than O-TLIF (median: 177 vs 461 mL; (weighted mean difference) WMD, -256.23; 95 % CI -351.35, -161.1; P < 0.00001). Infection rates were significantly lower in the minimally invasive cohort (1.2 vs 4.6 %; relative risk (RR), 0.27; 95 %, 0.14, 0.53; I (2) = 0 %; P = 0.0001). VAS back pain scores were significantly lower in the MI-TLIF group compared to O-TLIF (WMD, -0.41; 95 % CI -0.76, -0.06; I (2) = 96 %; P < 0.00001). Postoperative ODI scores were also significantly lower in the minimally invasive cohort (WMD, -2.21; 95 % CI -4.26, -0.15; I (2) = 93 %; P = 0.04). In summary, the present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that MI-TLIF appears to be a safe and efficacious approach compared to O-TLIF. MI-TLIF is associated with lower blood loss and infection rates in patients, albeit at the risk of higher radiation exposure for the surgical team. The long-term relative merits require further validation in prospective, randomized studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 113 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2015.
All research outputs
#20,265,771
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#3,658
of 4,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,155
of 263,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#62
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.