Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge

Ali Habib, Zachary A. Smith*, Cort D. Lawton, Richard G. Fessler

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

34 Scopus citations

Abstract

This paper reviews the current published data regarding open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in relation to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). Introduction. MI-TLIF, a modern method for lumbar interbody arthrodesis, has allowed for a minimally invasive method to treat degenerative spinal pathologies. Currently, there is limited literature that compares TLIF directly to MI-TLIF. Thus, we seek to discuss the current literature on these techniques. Methods. Using a PubMed search, we reviewed recent publications of open and MI-TLIF, dating from 2002 to 2012. We discussed these studies and their findings in this paper, focusing on patient-reported outcomes as well as complications. Results. Data found in 14 articles of the literature was analyzed. Using these reports, we found mean follow-up was 20 months. The mean patient study size was 52. Seven of the articles directly compared outcomes of open TLIF with MI-TLIF, such as mean duration of surgery, length of post-operative stay, blood loss, and complications. Conclusion. Although high-class data comparing these two techniques is lacking, the current evidence supports MI-TLIF with outcomes comparable to that of the traditional, open technique. Further prospective, randomized studies will help to further our understanding of this minimally invasive technique.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number657342
JournalMinimally Invasive Surgery
Volume2012
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this