TY - JOUR
T1 - Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
T2 - A perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge
AU - Habib, Ali
AU - Smith, Zachary A.
AU - Lawton, Cort D.
AU - Fessler, Richard G.
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873845170&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84873845170&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1155/2012/657342
DO - 10.1155/2012/657342
M3 - Review article
C2 - 22928099
AN - SCOPUS:84873845170
SN - 2090-1445
VL - 2012
JO - Minimally Invasive Surgery
JF - Minimally Invasive Surgery
M1 - 657342
ER -