Comparison of Results and Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

Cover Page
Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract


Backgraund: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is becoming the most popular treatment method in modern vertebrology. But at the same time, limited working space, significant intraoperative radiation exposure and high risks of developing perioperative complications associated with a long learning curve are constraints for the widespread use of this technology by most spinal surgeons. Aims: to conduct a meta-analysis based on the results of prospective cohort clinical studies that compare the results of the application of minimally invasive and open transforaminal interbody spinal fusion techniques in treating patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. Materials and methods: A search for randomized clinical trials was conducted in the Pubmed, EMBASE, eLibrary and Cochrane Library databases published from January 2008 to December 2018, which compared the results of minimally invasive (MIS-TLIF) and open (Open-TLIF) techniques transforaminal interbody fusion in treating patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. For dichotomous variables, the relative risk and 95% confidence interval were calculated; in turn, standardized difference of mean values and their 95% confidence intervals were used for continuous variables, using the random effects model. Results: The meta-analysis included 21 prospective cohort studies, three of which were randomized controlled clinical trials. The results of the surgical treatment of 1762 patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine were evaluated in total. In the MIS-TLIF group, reliably smaller parameters of the duration of surgical intervention (p<0.00001), the volume of intraoperative blood loss (p<0.00001), the timing of postoperative inpatient treatment (p<0.00001), the economic costs of treatment (p<0.00001) and the number of perioperative adverse effects (p=0.006). At the same time, the duration of intraoperative fluoroscopy is registered significantly less in the Open-TLIF group (p<0.00001). Conclusions: The MIS-TLIF method in comparison with the Open-TLIF method has significantly lower objective indicators characterizing the invasiveness of the surgical intervention, as well as the development of undesirable consequences, the associated shorter duration of hospitalization and financial costs for treating patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. At the same time, significantly more time of intraoperative irradiation was confirmed, due to the technical features of performing transcutaneous closed manipulations in the absence of direct visualization of the operated segment in the MIS-TLIF group.


Vadim A. Byvaltsev

Irkutsk State Medical University; Irkutsk Scientific Center of Surgery and Traumatology; Irkutsk State Academy of Postgraduate Education; Road Clinical Hospital at st. Irkutsk-Passenger

Author for correspondence.
Email: byval75vadim@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4349-7101

Russian Federation

Dr.Med.Sci., professor, head of neurosurgery department at the Irkutsk State Medical University; The chief neurosurgeon, the head of the Neurosurgery Center "Road Clinical Hospital at St. Irkutsk-Passenger "; Head of the Scientific Clinical Department of Neurosurgery of the Irkutsk Scientific Center for Surgery and Traumatology; Professor of the Department of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Neurosurgery of the Irkutsk State Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education.

10, Botkina street, 664082 Irkutsk.

SPIN-code: 5996-6477

Andrey A. Kalinin

Irkutsk State Medical University; Road Clinical Hospital at st. Irkutsk-Passenger

Email: andrei_doc_v@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9039-9147

Russian Federation

Cand.Med.Sci, associate professor of the neurosurgery department of the Irkutsk State Medical University; Neurosurgeon of the Neurosurgery Center "Road Clinical Hospital at st. Irkutsk-Passenger".

SPIN-code: 9707-8291

Valeriy V. Shepelev

Irkutsk State Medical University

Email: shepelev.dok@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5135-8115

Russian Federation

MD, PhD, Doctoral candidate of the neurosurgery department.

  1. Бывальцев В.А., Калинин А.А., Белых Е.Г., и др. Оптимизация результатов лечения пациентов с сегментарной нестабильностью поясничного отдела позвоночника при использовании малоинвазивной методики спондилодеза // Вопросы нейрохирургии им. Н.Н. Бурденко. — 2015. — T.79. — №3 — С. 45–54. doi: 10.17116/neiro201579345-54.
  2. Gu G, Zhang H, Fan G, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop. 2014;38(4):817–824. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2169-x.
  3. Belykh E, Kalinin AA, Martirosyan NL, et al. Facet joint fixation and anterior, direct lateral, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions for treatment of degenerative lumbar disc diseases: retrospective cohort study of a new minimally invasive technique. World Neurosurg. 2018;114:e959–e968. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.03.121.
  4. Lin EY, Kuo YK, Kang YN. Effects of three common lumbar interbody fusion procedures for degenerative disc disease: a network meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Surg. 2018;60:224–230. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.11.009.
  5. Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, et al. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine. 2013;38:2049–2055. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a8212d.
  6. Yang Y, Liu B, Rong LM, et al. Microendoscopy-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: short-term and medium-term outcomes. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(11):21319–21326.
  7. Patel AA, Zfass-Mendez M, Lebwohl NH, et al. Minimally invasive versus open lumbar fusion: a comparison of blood loss, surgical complications, and hospital course. Iowa Orthop J. 2015;35:130–134.
  8. Wu AM, Hu ZC, Li XB, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single segmental lumbar spondylolisthesis: minimum two-year follow up. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6(6):105. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.02.11.
  9. Goldstein CL, Phillips FM, Rampersaud YR. Comparative effectiveness and economic evaluations of open versus minimally invasive posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Spine. 2016;41 Suppl 8:S74–89. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001462.
  10. Wang HL, Lü FZ, Jiang JY, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J. 2011;124:3868–3874.
  11. Kim CH, Lee CH, Kim KP. How high are radiation-related risks in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with traditional open surgery: a meta-analysis and dose estimates of ionizing radiation. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(2):52–59. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000351.
  12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.
  13. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses [Internet]. [Accessed July 31, 2018]. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
  14. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2009;34(13):1385–1389. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be.
  15. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine. 2010;35:1615–1620. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c70fe3.
  16. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z.
  17. Adogwa O, Johnson K, Min ET, et al. Extent of intraoperative muscle dissection does not affect long-term outcomes after minimally invasive surgery versus open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(Suppl 5):S355–361. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.103868.
  18. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:2265−2270. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2281-4.
  19. Pelton MA, Phillips FM, Singh K. A comparison of perioperative costs and outcomes in patients with and without workers’ compensation claims treated with minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2012;37(22):1914–1919. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318257d490.
  20. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, 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. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.041.
  21. Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, et al. A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1694–1701. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.053.
  22. Sulaiman WA, Singh M. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1–2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Ochsner J. 2014;14:32–37.
  23. Wang J, Zhou Y, Feng Zhang Z, et al. 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(4):202–206. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31825d68ac.
  24. Wong AP, Smith ZA, Stadler JA, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): Surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014;25:279−304. doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2013.12.007.
  25. Kulkarni AG, Bohra H, Dhruv A, et al. Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Indian J Orthop. 2016;50(5):464–472. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.189607.
  26. Serban D, Calina N, Tender G. Standard versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective randomized study. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7236970. doi: 10.1155/2017/7236970.
  27. Tian W, Xu YF, Liu B, et al. Computer-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion may be better than open surgery for treating degenerative lumbar disease. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(6):237–242. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000165.
  28. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00264-008-0687-8.
  29. 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 Off J Neurosurg Soc Australas. 2012;19:829–835. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2011.10.004.
  30. Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(8):1741–1749. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2747-z.
  31. Xie Q, Zhang J, Lu F, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in obese patients: a meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-1937-6.
  32. Li A, Li X, Zhong Y. Is minimally invasive superior than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):241. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0941-8.
  33. Ntoukas V, Muller A. Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2010;53:21–24. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1247560.
  34. Miller DL, Balter S, Dixon RG, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for recording patient radiation dose in the medical record for fluoroscopically guided procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23:11–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.09.004.
  35. Бывальцев В.А., Калинин А.А. Возможности применения минимально инвазивных дорсальных декомпрессивно-стабилизирующих вмешательств у пациентов с избыточной массой тела и ожирением // Вопросы нейрохирургии им. Н.Н. Бурденко. — 2018. — №5 — C. 69–80. doi: 10.17116/neiro20188205169.
  36. Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL, et al. Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(6):847–874. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000913.
  37. Hu W, Tang J, Wu X, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications. Int Orthop. 2016;40(9):1883–1890. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3153-z.
  38. Бывальцев В.А., Калинин А.А., Голобородько В.Ю. Оптимизация хирургической помощи и анестезиологического пособия при лечении многоуровневых дегенеративных заболеваний поясничного отдела позвоночника у пациентов с избыточной массой тела и ожирением // Вестник Российской академии медицинских наук. — 2018. — Т.73. — №6 — С. 401–410. doi: 10.15690/vramn996.
  39. Chang F, Zhang T, Gao G, et al. Comparison of the minimally invasive and conventional open surgery approach in the treatment of lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2017;46(4):124–137.
  40. Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(5):1017–1030. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3903-4.
  41. Xie L, Wu WJ, Liang Y. Comparison between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated meta-analysis. Chin Med J. 2016;129(16):1969–1986. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.187847.

Views

Abstract - 47

PDF (Russian) - 0

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies