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

Autor: Ren BW; Department of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China; Medical School of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China., Zhao HM; Medical School of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China., Wu JH; Medical School of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China., An BC; Department of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China; Medical School of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China., Han ZC; Department of Orthopedics, PLA Rocket Force Characteristic Medical Center, Beijing, China., Liu YH; Department of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China; Medical School of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China., Mao KY; Department of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China., Liu JH; Department of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China. Electronic address: liujianheng@301hospital.com.cn.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: World neurosurgery [World Neurosurg] 2024 Sep; Vol. 189, pp. 357-372.e8. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 12.
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.06.031
Abstrakt: 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.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: