This is a meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing the clinical and radiological efficacy of minimally invasive (MI) and conventional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (open-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar diseases.
A literature search of the MEDLINE database identified 11 studies that met our inclusion criteria. A total of 785 patients were examined. Pooled estimates of clinical and radiological outcomes, and corresponding 95 % confidence intervals were calculated.
The pooled data revealed that MI-TLIF was associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and a trend of better functional outcomes when compared with open-TLIF. However, MI-TLIF significantly increased the intraoperative X-ray exposure. Both techniques had similar operative time, complication rate, and re-operation rate.
Based on the available evidence, MI-TLIF for degenerative lumbar diseases might lead to better patient-based outcomes. MI-TLIF would be a promising procedure, but extra efforts are needed to reduce its intraoperative radiation exposure. More randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these two surgical options.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Karikari IO, Isaacs RE (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine 35:S294–S301
Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R (2010) Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine 35:2273–2281
Tsahtsarlis A, Wood M (2012) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumber interbody fusion and degenerative lumbar spine disease. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2376-y
Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2011) Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 20:623–628
Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 28:S26–S35
Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 35:1615–1620
Wang HL, Lu FZ, Jiang JY, Ma X, Xia XL, Wang LX (2011) Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl) 124:3868–3874
Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2010) Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 19:1780–1784
Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2281-4
Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33:1683–1688
Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D (2011) Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci 18:624–627
Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI (2007) Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 60:203–213
Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV (2008) Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 9:560–565
Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12
Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:479–484
Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Nelson EL, Bulsara KR, Favors M, Thramann J (2005) Safety of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and intervertebral recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Neurosurg Spine 3:436–443
Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34:1385–1389
Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neurosurg. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2011.09.013
Wang J, Zhou Y, Feng Zhang Z, Qing Li C, Jie Zheng W, Liu J (2012) Comparison of clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31825d68ac
Chrastil J, Patel AA (2012) Complications associated with posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20:283–291
Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O’Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L’Abbe KA (1992) Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 45:255–265
Kim CW, Lee YP, Taylor W, Oygar A, Kim WK (2008) Use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy to decrease radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine J 8:584–590
Tjardes T, Shafizadeh S, Rixen D, Paffrath T, Bouillon B, Steinhausen ES, Baethis H (2010) Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions. Eur Spine J 19:25–45
Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ (2012) Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine 37:1548–1557
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Tian, N., Wu, Y., Zhang, X. et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J 22, 1741–1749 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2747-z
- Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
- Minimally invasive