Title |
Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in obese patients: a meta-analysis
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12891-018-1937-6 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Qingsong Xie, Jing Zhang, Feng Lu, Hao Wu, Zan Chen, Fengzeng Jian |
Abstract |
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. 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. 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. 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. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 9 | 16% |
Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
Other | 9 | 16% |
Unknown | 12 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 40% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
Neuroscience | 4 | 7% |
Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 7% |
Unknown | 19 | 33% |