Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

48Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) has been increasingly used to treat degenerative lumbar disease in recent years. However, there are still controversies about whether PE-TLIF is superior to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes and complications of PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in treating degenerative lumbar disease. Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of online databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify related studies reporting the outcomes and complications of PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. The clinical outcomes were assessed by the Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index. In addition, the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to ambulation, length of hospital stay, fusion rate, and surgery-related complications were summarized. Forest plots were constructed to investigate the results. Results: A total of 28 studies involving 1,475 patients were included in this meta-analysis. PE-TLIF significantly reduced operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to ambulation, and length of hospital stay compared to MIS-TLIF. Moreover, PE-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF in the early postoperative relief of back pain. However, there were no significant differences in medium to long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rate, and incidence of complications between PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF. Limitations: The current evidence is heterogeneous and most studies included in this meta-analysis are nonrandomized controlled trials. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis indicates that medium to long-term clinical outcomes and complication rates of PE-TLIF were similar to MIS-TLIF for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. However, PE-TLIF shows advantages in less surgical trauma, faster recovery, and early postoperative relief of back pain.

References Powered by Scopus

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration

8771Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample

6993Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome

525Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Comparison Between PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in the Treatment of Middle-Aged and Elderly Patients with Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation

18Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Does the application of expandable cages in TLIF provide improved clinical and radiological results compared to static cages? A meta-analysis

17Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Clinical Analysis of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Treatment of Severe Lumbar Disc Herniation with UBE Two-Channel Endoscopy and Foraminal Single-Channel Endoscopy Technique

16Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zhu, L., Cai, T., Shan, Y., Zhang, W., Zhang, L., & Feng, X. (2021, September 1). Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. https://doi.org/10.36076/ppj.2021.24.441

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 4

80%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

20%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 6

46%

Nursing and Health Professions 4

31%

Arts and Humanities 2

15%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

8%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free