Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2017, Article ID 7236970, 5 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7236970
Clinical Study

Standard versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Randomized Study

1Bagdasar-Arseni Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
2Louisiana State University, New Orleans, LA, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Gabriel Tender; ude.cshusl@ednetg

Received 4 November 2016; Revised 18 February 2017; Accepted 21 March 2017; Published 15 June 2017

Academic Editor: Jonathan N. Sembrano

Copyright © 2017 Daniel Serban et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. N. Weinstein, J. D. Lurie, T. D. Tosteson et al., “Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 356, no. 22, pp. 2257–2270, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. G. H. Tan, B. G. Goss, P. J. Thorpe, and R. P. Williams, “CT-based classification of long spinal allograft fusion,” European Spine Journal, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1875–1881, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. K. T. Foley, L. T. Holly, and J. D. Schwender, “Minimally invasive lumbar fusion,” in Spine, pp. S26–S35, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  4. S. L. Parker, S. K. Mendenhall, D. N. Shau et al., “Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 82, no. 1-2, pp. 230–238, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. C. L. Goldstein, K. Macwan, K. Sundararajan, and Y. R. Rampersaud, “Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review,” Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 416–427, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. N. R. Khan, A. J. Clark, S. L. Lee, G. T. Venable, N. B. Rossi, and K. T. Foley, “Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vERSUS open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis,” Neurosurgery, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 847–874, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. K. Phan, J. A. Hogan, and R. J. Mobbs, “Cost–utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation,” European Spine Journal, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2503–2513, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. S. W. Terman, T. J. Yee, D. Lau, A. A. Khan, F. La Marca, and P. Park, “Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients,” Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 644–652, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. S. Virdee, A. Nadig, G. Anagnostopoulos, and K. J. George, “Comparison of peri-operative and 12-month lifestyle outcomes in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional lumbar fusion,” British Journal of Neurosurgery, pp. 1–5, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. P. Wong, Z. A. Smith, J. A. Stadler et al., “Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort,” Neurosurgery Clinics of North America, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 279–304, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. H. L. Wang, F. Z. Lu, J. Y. Jiang, X. Ma, X. L. Xia, and L. X. Wang, “Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 124, pp. 3868–3874, 2011. View at Google Scholar