The researchers reviewed Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane database for randomized controlled trials or comparative cohort studies with at least 10 patients comparing minimally invasive or open TLIF/PLIF.
There were 3,301 articles included from 26 studies. All the studies were of low or very low quality. There were 856 MIS patients and 806 open patients. The researchers found:
1. Minimally invasive spine surgery patients lost 260 mL less blood than the open procedure patients.
2. The minimally invasive patients began ambulation 3.5 days before the open patients and their length of stay at the hospital was 2.9 days less than the open patients.
3. The operative time was similar between both minimally invasive and open procedures. There wasn’t a significant difference in adverse events, but the minimally invasive surgery cases were significantly less likely to experience medical adverse events.
4. There wasn’t a difference in the non-union rate or reoperation rates between both groups.
5. The average Oswestry Disability Index scores were slightly better in the minimally invasive patients when compared with the open surgery patients.
More articles on spine surgery:
5 key notes on how resident participation in spinal fusion affects outcomes
Protein may improve mobility for spinal cord injury patients
5 key notes on ocular radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery
