Romanian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2019-Jul

Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis.

Numai utilizatorii înregistrați pot traduce articole
Log In / Înregistrare
Linkul este salvat în clipboard
Ahmed Hammad
André Wirries
Ardavan Ardeshiri
Olexandr Nikiforov
Florian Geiger

Cuvinte cheie

Abstract

This study is a comparative, literature review.The aim of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review and a meta-analysis. Lumbar interbody fusion is a well-established surgical procedure for treating several spinal disorders. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was initially introduced in the early 1980s. To reduce approach-related morbidity associated with traditional open TLIF (OTLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MITLIF) was developed. We aimed to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review.We searched the online database PubMed (2005-2017), which yielded an initial 194 studies. We first searched the articles' abstracts. Based on our inclusion criteria, we excluded 162 studies and included 32 studies: 18 prospective, 13 retrospective, and a single randomized controlled trial. Operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, radiation exposure time, complication rate, and pain scores (visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index) for both techniques were recorded and presented as means. We then performed a meta-analysis.The meta-analysis for all outcomes showed reduced blood loss (P < 0.00001) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001) for MITLIF compared with OTLIF, but with increased radiation exposure time with MITLIF (P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in operative time between techniques (P = 0.78). The complication rate was lower with MITLIF (11.3%) vs. OTLIF (14.2%), but not statistically significantly different (P = 0.05). No significant differences were found in visual analogue scores (back and leg) and Oswestry Disability Index scores between techniques, at the final follow-up.MITLIF and OTLIF provide equivalent long-term clinical outcomes. MITLIF had less tissue injury, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. MITLIF is also a safe alternative in obese patients and, in experienced hands, can also be used safely in select cases of spondylodiscitis even with epidural abscess. MITLIF is also a cost-saving procedure associated with reduced hospital and social costs. Long-term studies are required to better evaluate controversial items such as operative time.

Alăturați-vă paginii
noastre de facebook

Cea mai completă bază de date cu plante medicinale susținută de știință

  • Funcționează în 55 de limbi
  • Cure pe bază de plante susținute de știință
  • Recunoașterea ierburilor după imagine
  • Harta GPS interactivă - etichetați ierburile în locație (în curând)
  • Citiți publicațiile științifice legate de căutarea dvs.
  • Căutați plante medicinale după efectele lor
  • Organizați-vă interesele și rămâneți la curent cu noutățile de cercetare, studiile clinice și brevetele

Tastați un simptom sau o boală și citiți despre plante care ar putea ajuta, tastați o plantă și vedeți boli și simptome împotriva cărora este folosit.
* Toate informațiile se bazează pe cercetări științifice publicate

Google Play badgeApp Store badge