Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in obese patients: A meta-analysis

34Citations
Citations of this article
65Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been employed in increasing cases compared with open TLIF (Open-TLIF). However, it is uncertain whether the advantages of MI-TLIF can also be specifically applied in obese patients. Therefore, the current study was thereby carried out aiming to compare the outcomes of MI-TLIF with those of Open-TLIF in obese patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: Electronic databases were systemically retrieved from construction to May 2017. Meanwhile, the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined. Results: A total of 7 observational cohort studies were enrolled into the current meta-analysis. The results indicated that, compared with Open-TLIF group, MI-TLIF could remarkably reduce the operative time (P = 0.002), intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative drainage (P = 0.01), length of stay (P < 0.001) and incidence of complications (P < 0.001). In addition, MI-TLIF could also lead to markedly lower early back pain-Visual Analog Scale (BP-VAS) score than that of Open-TLIF (P < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences were found in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), late BP-VAS, early leg pain-VAS (LP-VAS) and late LP-VAS scores. Conclusion: MI-TLIF may be a more preferred choice for obese patients undergoing spinal surgery. However, differences in the long-term functional and pain outcomes between MI-TLIF and Open-TLIF remain a source of controversy, which should be further verified in future randomized-control trials.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Xie, Q., Zhang, J., Lu, F., Wu, H., Chen, Z., & Jian, F. (2018). Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in obese patients: A meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1937-6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free