The Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Posterior Approach Spinal Fusion in Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: The Current Evidence from Prospective Comparative Studies

Abstract EN

Purpose.

To investigate the evidence of minimally invasive (MI) versus open (OP) posterior lumbar fusion in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis from current prospective literatures.

Methods.

The electronic literature database of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library was searched at April 2016.

The data of operative time, estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) of both lower back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), SF-36 PCS (physical component scores) and SF-36 MCS (mental component scores), complications, fusion rate, and secondary surgery were extracted and analyzed by STATA 12.0 software.

Results.

Five nonrandom prospective comparative studies were included in this meta-analysis.

The meta-analysis showed that the MI group had a significantly longer operative time than OP group, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay.

No significant difference was found in back pain, leg pain, ODI, SF-36 PCS, SF-36 MCS, complications, fusion rate, and secondary surgery between MI and OP groups.

Conclusion.

The prospective evidence suggested that MI posterior fusion for spondylolisthesis had less EBL and hospital stay than OP fusion; however it took more operative time.

Both MI and OP fusion had similar results in pain and functional outcomes, complication, fusion rate, and secondary surgery.