Minimally Invasive Spinal Fusion Using Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Instrumentation Can Provide a Better Health-Related QOL in Early Stage Than Conventional Methods in the Treatment of Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases

References

• Cloward BB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operating technique, after care. J Neurosurg. 1953;10:154–168. doi:10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Kim HG. Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolitic spondylolisthesis. Spine. 1997;22:210–219. doi:10.1097/00007632-199701150-00016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harms J, Rolinger H. Die operative Behandlung der Spondylolisthese durch dorsale Aufrichtung und ventrale Verblockung [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982;120:343–347. German. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1051624
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, Misawa H. Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction. Spine. 2009;34:1923–1928. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a9d28e
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xianggian F. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine. 2010;35:1615–1620. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c70fe3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karikari IO, Grossi PM, Nimjee SM, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion in patients older than 70 years of age: analysis of peri- and postoperative complications. Neurosurgery. 2011;68:897–902;discussion 902. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182098bfa
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ. Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine. 2012;37:1548–1557. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318252d44b
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Zhou Y, Feng Zhang Z, Qing LC, Jie Zheng W, Liu J. Comparison of the clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27:202–206. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31825d68ac
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Terman SW, Yee TJ, Lau D, Kahn AA, La marca F, Park P. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20:644–652. doi:10.3171/2014.2.SPINE13794
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu WJ, Liang Y, Zhang XK, Cao P, Xheng T. Complications and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of one- or two-level degenerative disc diseases of the lumbar spine in patients older than 65 years. Chin Med J. 2012;125:2505–2510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven E, Muñoz-Marín J, Herrera A, Velilla J. Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:2857–2863. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2853-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, McGirt MJ, McGirt MJ. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:479–484. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055cac
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1741–1749. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2747-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun ZJ, Li WJ, Zhao Y, Qiu GX. Comparing minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis. Chin Med J. 2013;126:3962–3971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1017–1030. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3903-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qu J, Tang Y, Wang M, Xu-Dong T, Tian-Jian Z, Guo-Hua S. Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1058–1065. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3890-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL, Venable GT, Rossi NB, Foley KT. Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated systemic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery. 2015;77:847–874. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000913
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putzier M, Hartwig T, Hoff EK, et al. Minimally invasive TLIF leads to increased muscle sparing of the multifidus muscle but not the longissimus muscle compared with conventional PLIF-A prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine J. 2016;16:811–819. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller LE, Bhattacharyya S, Pracyk J. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single level degenerative disease: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg. 2019;133:358–365. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.08.162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammad A, Wirries A, Ardeshiri A, Nikiforov O, Geiger F. Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14:229. doi:10.1186/s13018-019-1266-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009;33:1683–1688. doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0687-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2014;82:230–238. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rolland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back-pain. Spine. 1983;8:141–144. doi:10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, et al. Japanese orthopaedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire. part 2. verification of its reliability: the subcommittee on low back pain and cervical myelopathy evaluation of the clinical outcome committee of the Japanese orthopaedic association. J Orthop Sci. 2007;12(6):526e32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, et al. Japanese orthopaedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire. Part 3 validity study and establishment of the measurement scale: subcommittee on low back pain and cervical myelopathy evaluation of the clinical outcome committee of theJapanese orthopaedic association, Japan. J Orthop Sci. 2008;13(3):173e9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, et al. Subcommittee of the clinical outcome committee of the Japanese orthopaedic association on low back pain and cervical myelopathy evaluation. JOA Back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ)/JOA cervical myelopathy evaluation questionnaire (JOACMEQ). The report on the development of revised versions. April 16, 2007. The subcommittee of the clinical outcome committee of the Japanese orthopaedic association on low back pain and cervical myelopathy evaluation. J Orthop Sci. 2009;14(3):348e65.
   Google Scholar