| Title |
Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurosurgical Review, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10143-016-0806-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gun Keorochana, Kitipong Setrkraising, Patarawan Woratanarat, Alisara Arirachakaran, Jatupon Kongtharvonskul |
| Abstract |
The surgical procedures used for arthrodesis in the lumbar spine for degenerative lumbar diseases remain controversial. This systematic review aims to assess and compare clinical outcomes along with the complications and fusion of each technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF)) for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to July 19, 2016 that reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg pain visual analog score (VAS), postoperative complications, and fusion of either technique. Fifty-eight studies were included for the analysis of MIS-TLIF; 40 studies were included for analysis of LLIF, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was included for comparison of MIS-TLIF to LLIF. Overall, there were 9506 patients (5728 in the MIS-TLIF group and 3778 in the LLIF group). Indirect meta-analysis, MIS-TLIF provided better postoperative back and leg pain (VAS), disabilities (ODI), and risk of having complications when compared to LLIF technique, but the fusion rate was not significantly different between the two techniques. However, direct meta-analysis between RCT study and pooled indirect meta-analysis of MIS-TLIF have better pain, disabilities, and complication but no statistically significant difference when compared to LLIF. In LLIF, the pooled mean ODI and VAS back pain were 2.91 (95% CI 2.49, 3.33) and 23.24 (95% CI 18.96, 27.51) in MIS approach whereas 3.14 (95% CI 2.29, 4.04) and 28.29 (95% CI 21.92, 34.67) in traditional approach. In terms of complications and fusion rate, there was no difference in both groups. In lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF had better ODI, VAS pain, and complication rate when compared to LLIF with direct and indirect meta-analysis methods. However, in terms of fusion rates, there were no differences between the two techniques. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 20% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 49% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 30 | 34% |
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 29 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,640,437
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgical Review
#470
of 636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,641
of 420,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgical Review
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 636 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 420,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.