Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate whether MiTLIF could reduce the complication rate while maintaining the similar clinical result to that of open procedures. METHODS: A search of the literature was conducted on pubmed or EMBASE. A database including patient clinical information was created. A systematic review of eligible studies with multivariate regression analysis was performed to quantitatively review the correlation of VAS improvement rate and the performance of MiTLIF. RESULTS: Fourteen articles with a minimum of 12-month follow-up met our inclusion criteria. The hypothesis of homogeneity could be accepted. The fixed-effects model was used to calculate the summary risk ratio (odds ratio). In the pooled analysis, the summary risk ratio (odds ratio) in patients with MiTLIF against those with open procedure for fusion rate, complication rate and revision/readmission rate was 0.99 (p = 0.36), 1.15 (p = 0.5) and 2.59 (p = 0.003), respectively, suggesting that MiTLIF was a risk factor for revision/readmission. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the percentage of male patients and the length of surgery exert a significant impact on VAS improvement rate. The selection of MiTLF was not significant. CONCLUSION: Fusion rate and complication rate for both open and MiTLIF were similar. Moreover, the MiTLIF group tended to have a higher revision/readmission rate, which might be associated with the deep learning curve. Therefore, to achieve the level of surgical skill required of an MiTLIF surgeon, many years of training and experience are necessary. Otherwise, MiTLIF may yield unsatisfactory result upon patients.