Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

12Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a classic surgical procedure for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). With the development of endoscopic technology, endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) can also achieve adequate decompression and interbody fusion. However, whether Endo-TLIF is superior to MIS-TLIF has not been adequately studied. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the treatment difference between Endo-TLIF vs MIS-TLIF. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies to compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with Endo-TLIF vs. MIS-TLIF for the treatment of LDD. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases for studies published up to April 1, 2022. Both retrospective and prospective studies that compared between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were included. Results: A total of 8 studies involving 581 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. Endo-TLIF significantly prolonged the operation time, but reduced the blood loss amount and length of hospital stay. Moreover, Endo-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF on relief of back pain and functional recovery in the early postoperative period. However, there were no significantly differences in long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rate and incidence of complications between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF. Conclusions: Endo-TLIF was similar to MIS-TLIF in the long-term clinical outcomes, fusion and complication rates. Endo-TLIF prolongs the operation time, but shortens the length of hospital stay, and has the advantages of less surgical trauma, less blood loss, faster recovery, and early postoperative back pain relief.

References Powered by Scopus

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

45882Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

16407Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

5885Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective

15Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

14Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Comparison of Outcomes Between Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Study

4Citations
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

Guo, H., Song, Y., Weng, R., Tian, H., Yuan, J., & Li, Y. (2023, June 1). Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Global Spine Journal. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682221142545

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

33%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

33%

Researcher 2

33%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 6

67%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

11%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

11%

Arts and Humanities 1

11%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free