A meta-analysis of interlaminar minimally invasive discectomy compared to conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar disk herniation

Wang, Xuesong; Sun, Ruifu; Ji, Qiang; Zhao, Bing; Niu, X; Wang, Rong; Peng, Lei; Tian, Xiaodong

doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.10.001

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The advent and application of TMD was supposed to have similar or better results than CMD, but this conclusion has not been verified by sufficient evidence. In previous studies, Wang et al [ 14 ] and Kamper et al [ 15 ] respectively conducted a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes between minimally invasive discectomy and CMD. However, most of the included studies focused the clinical outcomes between MED and CMD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tubular microscopes discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disk herniation

Chang²,

Meng

2018

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The application of tubular microscopes discectomy (TMD) was supposed to have similar or better results than conventional microdiscectomy (CMD). However, this conclusion had not been verified by sufficient evidence. Therefore, the focus of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficiency, safety, and clinical outcome of these 2 surgical procedures for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH).Methods:PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Central databases were searched for studies which compared the results of TMD and CMD for the treatment of LDH up to July 2017. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3. A standardized electronic form of 17 predefined criteria from the Consort statement was used for the quality assessment.Results:Eight randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 2 retrospective studies were included in this review, including 804 patients. The pooled analysis showed that there was no significant difference in operative time (P = .38), blood loss (P = .14), the length of hospital stay (P = .47), the rate of intraoperative complications (P = .79), postoperative complications (P = .16), dural tear (P = .87), the reoperation (P = .20), the short-term back visual analog scale (VAS) scores (P = .76), the long-term back VAS scores (P = .64), the short-term leg VAS scores (P = .09), the long-term leg VAS scores (P = .35), and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores (P = .41).Conclusion:The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that TMD and CMD are both safe and effective surgical procedures which can be recommended for treating LDH. Additionally, the conclusion should be cautiously treated, because it was reached in the context of limited amount of studies and relatively small sample size. Therefore, future studies with good design and more large samples are required to validate this conclusion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 10 – 13 ] And as far as we know, there was no meta-analysis comparing TMD to CMD at present. [ 14 , 15 ] Given that, we conducted this meta-analysis to determine whether TMD or CMD was more safe and efficacious for patients sustained LDH.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tubular microscopes discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disk herniation

Chang²,

Meng

2018

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For patients with spondylolisthesis refractory to conservative therapy, surgical intervention represent an alternative option with studies [1][2][3][4] Many studies have focused on comparing perioperative, functional and pain outcomes between MIS and OS in treating general lumbar degenerative diseases (including spondylolisthesis, disc disease and spinal stenosis). Systematic evidence has investigated MIS versus OS in this group of conditions for spinal fusion [6][7][8][9] , laminectomy 10,11 , discectomy 12 , and pedicle screw fixation 13 . However, to the best of our knowledge, no review of spondylolisthesis has analysed perioperative, functional and pain outcomes between MIS and OS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Surgery Spinal Fusion for Spondylolisthesis

Kerezoudis

Gilder

et al. 2017

Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Systematic evidences have investigated the efficacy of spinal fusion [ 12 – 14 ], laminectomy [ 15 ], discectomy [ 16 ], and pedicle screw fixation [ 17 ] between MI-TLIF and Open-TLIF. However, to the best of our knowledge, no review has analyzed the perioperative, functional, and pain outcomes between MI-TLIF and Open-TLIF in obese population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in obese patients: a meta-analysis

Xie

Zhang

et al. 2018

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMinimally 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.MethodsElectronic databases were systemically retrieved from construction to May 2017. Meanwhile, the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined.ResultsA 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.ConclusionMI-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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-018-1937-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

A meta-analysis of interlaminar minimally invasive discectomy compared to conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar disk herniation

Cited by 23 publications

References 31 publications

Tubular microscopes discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disk herniation

Tubular microscopes discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disk herniation

Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Surgery Spinal Fusion for Spondylolisthesis

Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in obese patients: a meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About