Comparison of Fusion Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Minimally Invasive and Conventional Posterior Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The fusion rate, clinical efficacy, and complications of minimally invasive fusion surgery and open fusion surgery in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease are still unclear. METHODS: We conducted a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WANFANG databases. RESULTS: This study included 38 retrospective studies involving 3097 patients. Five intervention modalities were considered: unilateral biportal endoscopic-lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF), percutaneous endoscopic-lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF), minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Quality assessment indicated that each study met acceptable quality standards. PE-LIF demonstrated reduced low back pain (Odds Ratio = 0.50, Confidence Interval: 0.38-0.65) and lower complication rate (Odds Ratio = 0.46, Confidence Interval: 0.25-0.87) compared to PLIF. However, in indirect comparisons, PE-LIF showed the lowest fusion rates, with the ranking as follows: UBE-LIF (83.2%) > MIS-TLIF (59.6%) > TLIF (44.3%) > PLIF (39.8%) > PE-LIF (23.1%). With respect to low back pain relief, PE-LIF yielded the best results, with the order of relief as follows: PE-LIF (96.4%) > MIS-TLIF (64.8%) > UBE-LIF (62.6%) > TLIF (23.0%) > PLIF (3.2%). Global and local consistency tests showed satisfactory results, and heterogeneity tests indicated good stability. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to conventional open surgery, minimally invasive fusion surgery offered better scores for low back pain and Oswestry Disability Index, lower complication rates, reduced bleeding, and shorter hospital stays. However, minimally invasive fusion surgery did not show a significant advantage in terms of fusion rate and had a longer operative time.

Clinical efficacy and complications of MIS-TLIF and TLIF in the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment modality for upper lumbar disc herniation remains unclear. Herein, we compared the clinical efficacy and application value of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for upper lumbar disc herniation. We aimed to provide new evidence to guide surgical decisions for treating this condition. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 81 patients with upper lumbar disc herniation admitted between January 2017 and July 2018, including 41 and 40 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF and TLIF, respectively. Demographic characteristics, preoperative functional scores, perioperative indicators, and postoperative complications were compared. We performed consecutive comparisons of visual analog scale (VAS) scores of the lumbar and leg regions, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores (JOA), and MacNab scores at the final follow-up, to assess clinical outcomes 5 years postoperatively. RESULTS: VAS scores of the back and legs were significantly lower in the MIS-TLIF than the TLIF group at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively (P < 0.05). Intraoperative bleeding and postoperative hospitalization time were significantly lower, and the time to return to work/normal life was shorter in the MIS-TLIF than in the TLIF group (P < 0.05). The differences in JOA scores and ODI scores between the two groups at 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years postoperatively were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The early clinical efficacy of MIS-TLIF was superior to that of TLIF, but no differences were found in mid-term clinical efficacy. Further, MIS-TLIF has the advantages of fewer medical injuries, shorter hospitalization times, and faster postoperative functional recovery.

Comparison between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has produced good results for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs), its efficacy vis-a-vis posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of OLIF and PLIF for the treatment of LDDs. METHODS: A comprehensive assessment of the literature was conducted, and the quality of retrieved studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Clinical parameters included the visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for pain, disability, and functional levels. Statistical analysis related to operative time, intraoperative bleeding, length of hospital stay, lumbar lordosis angle, postoperative disc height, and complication rates was performed. The PROSPERO number for the present systematic review is CRD42023406695. RESULTS: In total, 574 patients (287 for OLIF, 287 for PLIF) from eight studies were included. The combined mean postoperative difference in ODI and lumbar VAS scores was - 1.22 and - 0.43, respectively. In postoperative disc, height between OLIF and PLIF was 2.05. The combined advantage ratio of the total surgical complication rate and the mean difference in lumbar lordosis angle between OLIF and PLIF were 0.46 and 1.72, respectively. The combined mean difference in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay between OLIF and PLIF was - 128.67 and - 2.32, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both the OLIF and PLIF interventions showed good clinical efficacy for LDDs. However, OLIF demonstrated a superior advantage in terms of intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, degree of postoperative disc height recovery, and postoperative complication rate.