Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The surgical procedures used for arthrodesis in the lumbar spine for degenerative lumbar diseases remain controversial. This systematic review aims to assess and compare clinical outcomes along with the complications and fusion of each technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF)) for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to July 19, 2016 that reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg pain visual analog score (VAS), postoperative complications, and fusion of either technique. Fifty-eight studies were included for the analysis of MIS-TLIF; 40 studies were included for analysis of LLIF, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was included for comparison of MIS-TLIF to LLIF. Overall, there were 9506 patients (5728 in the MIS-TLIF group and 3778 in the LLIF group). Indirect meta-analysis, MIS-TLIF provided better postoperative back and leg pain (VAS), disabilities (ODI), and risk of having complications when compared to LLIF technique, but the fusion rate was not significantly different between the two techniques. However, direct meta-analysis between RCT study and pooled indirect meta-analysis of MIS-TLIF have better pain, disabilities, and complication but no statistically significant difference when compared to LLIF. In LLIF, the pooled mean ODI and VAS back pain were 2.91 (95% CI 2.49, 3.33) and 23.24 (95% CI 18.96, 27.51) in MIS approach whereas 3.14 (95% CI 2.29, 4.04) and 28.29 (95% CI 21.92, 34.67) in traditional approach. In terms of complications and fusion rate, there was no difference in both groups. In lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF had better ODI, VAS pain, and complication rate when compared to LLIF with direct and indirect meta-analysis methods. However, in terms of fusion rates, there were no differences between the two techniques.

Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECT Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are 2 currently popular techniques for lumbar arthrodesis. The authors compare the total risk of each procedure, along with other important complication outcomes. METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies (up to May 2015) that reported complications of either MI-TLIF or LLIF were identified from a search in the PubMed database. The primary outcome was overall risk of complication per patient. Secondary outcomes included risks of sensory deficits, temporary neurological deficit, permanent neurological deficit, intraoperative complications, medical complications, wound complications, hardware failure, subsidence, and reoperation. RESULTS Fifty-four studies were included for analysis of MI-TLIF, and 42 studies were included for analysis of LLIF. Overall, there were 9714 patients (5454 in the MI-TLIF group and 4260 in the LLIF group) with 13,230 levels fused (6040 in the MI-TLIF group and 7190 in the LLIF group). A total of 1045 complications in the MI-TLIF group and 1339 complications in the LLIF group were reported. The total complication rate per patient was 19.2% in the MI-TLIF group and 31.4% in the LLIF group (p < 0.0001). The rate of sensory deficits and temporary neurological deficits, and permanent neurological deficits was 20.16%, 2.22%, and 1.01% for MI-TLIF versus 27.08%, 9.40%, and 2.46% for LLIF, respectively (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p = 0.002, respectively). Rates of intraoperative and wound complications were 3.57% and 1.63% for MI-TLIF compared with 1.93% and 0.80% for LLIF, respectively (p = 0.0003 and p = 0.034, respectively). No significant differences were noted for medical complications or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS While there was a higher overall complication rate with LLIF, MI-TLIF and LLIF both have acceptable complication profiles. LLIF had higher rates of sensory as well as temporary and permanent neurological symptoms, although rates of intraoperative and wound complications were less than MI-TLIF. Larger, prospective comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings as the current literature is of relative poor quality.