Minimally invasive versus open surgery for the correction of adult degenerative scoliosis: a systematic review.
Minimally invasive surgery
Open surgery
Scoliosis
Spinal deformity
Journal
Neurosurgical review
ISSN: 1437-2320
Titre abrégé: Neurosurg Rev
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7908181
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
09
01
2020
accepted:
03
03
2020
revised:
14
02
2020
pubmed:
14
3
2020
medline:
16
6
2021
entrez:
14
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While open surgery has been the primary surgical approach for adult degenerative scoliosis, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) represents an alternative option and appears to be associated with reduced morbidity. Given the lack of consensus, we aimed to conduct a systematic review on available literature comparing MIS versus open surgery for adult degenerative scoliosis. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through December 16, 2019, for studies that compared both MIS and open surgery in patients with degenerative scoliosis. Four cohort studies reporting on 350 patients met the inclusion criteria. In two studies, patients undergoing open surgery were younger and had more severe disease at baseline as compared with MIS. Patients who underwent MIS had less blood loss, shorter length of stay, and a reduced rate of complications and infections. Both MIS and open surgery resulted in a significant change in pain and disability scores and both approaches provided significant correction of deformity in all studies, although open surgery was associated with a greater change in pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) in two and three studies, respectively. In patients with adult degenerative scoliosis undergoing surgery, both MIS and open approaches appeared to offer comparable improvements in pain and function. However, MIS was associated with better safety outcomes, while open surgery provided greater correction of spinal deformity. Further studies are needed to identify specific subset of patients who may benefit from one approach versus the other.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32166508
doi: 10.1007/s10143-020-01280-9
pii: 10.1007/s10143-020-01280-9
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
659-668Références
Schwab F, Dubey A, Gamez L, El Fegoun AB, Hwang K, Pagala M, Farcy JP (2005) Adult scoliosis: prevalence, SF-36, and nutritional parameters in an elderly volunteer population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1082–1085
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000160842.43482.cd
Adogwa O, Sure DR, LaBagnara M, Shaffrey CI, Fessler RG (2016) Minimally invasive spine surgery and sagittal correction. Neurosurgery 63(Suppl 1):31–36. https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000001290
doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000001290
pubmed: 27399361
Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S, Hostin R, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, Boachie-Adjei O, Burton DC, Akbarnia BA, Mundis GM, Ames CP, Kebaish K, Hart RA, Farcy JP, Lafage V (2013) Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E803–E812. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318292b7b9
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318292b7b9
Blondel B, Schwab F, Ungar B, Smith J, Bridwell K, Glassman S, Shaffrey C, Farcy JP, Lafage V (2012) Impact of magnitude and percentage of global sagittal plane correction on health-related quality of life at 2-years follow-up. Neurosurgery 71:341–348; discussion 348. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31825d20c0
doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31825d20c0
pubmed: 22596038
Maggio DAT, Kelleher J, Ames C, Shaffrey C, Smith J (2017) Evaluation and treatment of adult scoliosis and sagittal plane deformity. In: Couldwell WMB, Seifert V, Ture U, Kliot M, Magistretti P (eds) Youmans and Winn neurological surgery, 7th edn. Elsevier Inc, Philadelphia, pp 2594–2602
Chou D, Mundis G, Wang M, Fu KM, Shaffrey C, Okonkwo D, Kanter A, Eastlack R, Nguyen S, Deviren V, Uribe J, Fessler R, Nunley P, Anand N, Park P, Mummaneni P (2019) Minimally invasive surgery for mild to moderate adult spinal deformities: impact on intensive care unit and hospital stay. World Neurosurg 127:e649 01. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.237
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.237
pubmed: 30947010
Uddin OM, Haque R, Sugrue PA, Ahmed YM, El Ahmadieh TY, Press JM, Koski T, Fessler RG (2015) Cost minimization in treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine 23:798–806. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.3.Spine14560
doi: 10.3171/2015.3.Spine14560
pubmed: 26315955
Uribe JS, Deukmedjian AR, Mummaneni PV, Fu KM, Mundis GM Jr, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS, Eastlack R, Wang MY, Anand N, Fessler RG, La Marca F, Park P, Lafage V, Deviren V, Bess S, Shaffrey CI (2014) Complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: an analysis of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open surgical techniques. Neurosurg Focus 36:E15. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.Focus13534
doi: 10.3171/2014.3.Focus13534
pubmed: 24785480
Kulkarni A, Bohra H, Dhruv A, Sarraf A, Bassi A, Patil V (2016) Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Indian J Orthop 50:464–472. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.189607
doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.189607
pubmed: 27746487
pmcid: 5017166
Phan K, Rao PJ, Scherman DB, Dandie G, Mobbs RJ (2015) Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for sagittal balance correction and spinal deformity. J Clin Neurosci 22:1714–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2015.03.050
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.03.050
pubmed: 26190218
Dangelmajer S, Zadnik PL, Rodriguez ST, Gokaslan ZL, Sciubba DM (2014) Minimally invasive spine surgery for adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 36:E7. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.Focus144
doi: 10.3171/2014.3.Focus144
pubmed: 24785489
LA Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25:603–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
pubmed: 20652370
pmcid: 20652370
Sun ZJ, Li WJ, Zhao Y, Qiu GX (2013) Comparing minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis. Chin Med J 126:3962–3971
pubmed: 24157166
Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 54:33–37. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1269904
doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1269904
pubmed: 21506066
Mummaneni PV, Park P, Shaffrey CI, Wang MY, Uribe JS, Fessler RG, Chou D, Kanter AS, Okonkwo DO, Mundis GM, Eastlack RK, Nunley PD, Anand N, Virk MS, Lenke LG, Than KD, Robinson LC, Fu KM (2019) The MISDEF2 algorithm: an updated algorithm for patient selection in minimally invasive deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 32:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.7.Spine181104
doi: 10.3171/2019.7.Spine181104
Mariscalco MWMY, Takayuki MD, Steinmetz MP, Krishnaney AA, Lieberman IH, Mroz TE (2011) Radiation exposure to the surgeon during open lumbar microdiscectomy and minimally invasive microdiscectomy: a prospective, controlled trial. Spine 36(3):255–260
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ceb976