BackgroundAs surgical complications tend to occur more frequently in the beginning stages of a surgeon's career, knowledge of perioperative complications is important to perform a safe procedure, especially if the surgeon is a novice. We sought to identify and describe perioperative complications and their management in connection with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of our first 124 patients who underwent minimally invasive TLIF. The primary outcome measure was adverse events during the perioperative period, including neurovascular injury, implant-related complications, and wound infection. Pseudarthroses and adjacent segment pathologies were not included in this review. Adverse events that were not specifically related to spinal surgery and did not affect recovery were also excluded.ResultsPerioperative complications occurred in 9% of patients (11/124); including three cases of temporary postoperative neuralgia, two deep wound infections, two pedicle screw misplacements, two cage migrations, one dural tear, and one grafted bone extrusion. No neurologic deficits were reported. Eight complications occurred in the first one-third of the series and only 3 complications occurred in the last two-thirds of the series. Additional surgeries were performed in 6% of patients (7/124); including four reoperations (two for cage migrations, one for a misplaced screw, and one for an extruded graft bone fragment) and three hardware removals (one for a misplaced screw and two for infected cages).ConclusionsWe found perioperative complications occurred more often in the early period of a surgeon's experience with minimally invasive TLIF. Implant-related complications were common and successfully managed by additional surgeries in this series. We suggest greater caution should be exercised to avoid the potential complications, especially when surgeon is a novice to this procedure.

PurposeTo evaluate the efficacy of minimally invasive spinal fusion in comparison to open fusion for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis or spondylosis.Materials and MethodsThe present study was conducted as a meta-analysis of all estimates from studies that were selected after comprehensive literature search by two independent reviewers.ResultsOf 745 articles, nine prospective cohort studies were identifed. The quality of evidence was downgraded because of study design, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias. Greater Oswestry Disability Index score improvement [weighted mean difference (WMD), 3.2; 95% confdence interval (CI), 1.5 to 5.0; p=0.0003] and a lower infection rate (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.9; p=0.02) were observed in the minimally invasive group (low-quality evidence). The minimally invasive group had less blood loss (WMD, 269.5 mL; 95% CI, 246.2 to 292.9 mL; p<0.0001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD, 1.3 days; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5 days, p<0.0001), and longer operation time (WMD, 21.0 minutes; 95% CI, 15.9 to 26.2 minutes; p<0.0001) and radiation exposure time(WMD, 25.4 seconds; 95% CI, 22.0 to 28.8 seconds, p<0.0001) than the open group (low-quality evidence). There were no significant differences in pain improvement, fusion rate, complications, or subsequent surgeries between the two treatment groups (low-quality evidence).ConclusionAlthough present findings are limited by insufficient evidence and there is a lack of adequately powered high-quality randomized controlled trials to address this gap in evidence, our results support that minimally invasive lumbar fusion is more effective than open fusion for adult spondylolisthesis and other spondylosis in terms of functional improvement, reducing infection rate, and decreasing blood loss and hospital stay.

High cumulative AAS is an independent risk factor for SMN and its early-onset development after osteosarcoma.