scholarly journals Spinal Biologics in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Surgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Y. Chang ◽  
Wellington K. Hsu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Lumbar Surgery ◽  
Spinal Arthrodesis ◽  
Optimal Fusion ◽  
Bone Graft Substitutes ◽  
Minimally Invasive Spine

As the use of minimally invasive spine (MIS) fusion approaches continues to grow, increased scrutiny is being placed on its outcomes and efficacies against traditional open fusion surgeries. While there are many factors that contribute to the success of achieving spinal arthrodesis, selecting the optimal fusion biologic remains a top priority. With an ever-expanding market of bone graft substitutes, it is important to evaluate each of their use as it pertains to MIS techniques. This review will summarize the important characteristics and properties of various spinal biologics used in minimally invasive lumbar surgeries and compare their fusion rates via a systematic review of published literature.

scholarly journals Minimally Invasive Spine Lumbar Surgery in Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-176
Author(s):  
Yahya A. Othman ◽  
Abduljabbar Alhammoud ◽  
Osama Aldahamsheh ◽  
Avani S. Vaishnav ◽  
Catherine Himo Gang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Lumbar Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive Spine

scholarly journals Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 509-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zorica Buser ◽  
Darrel S. Brodke ◽  
Jim A. Youssef ◽  
Hans-Joerg Meisel ◽  
Sue Lynn Myhre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Synthetic Bone ◽  
Synthetic Bone Graft ◽  
Bone Graft Substitutes

The purpose of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of synthetic bone graft substitutes versus autograft or allograft for the treatment of lumbar and cervical spinal degenerative diseases. Multiple major medical reference databases were searched for studies that evaluated spinal fusion using synthetic bone graft substitutes (either alone or with an autograft or allograft) compared with autograft and allograft. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with more than 10 patients were included. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. The search yielded 214 citations with 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. For the patients with lumbar spinal degenerative disease, data from 19 comparative studies were included: 3 RCTs, 12 prospective, and 4 retrospective studies. Hydroxyapatite (HA), HA+collagen, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), calcium sulfate, or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) were used. Overall, there were no differences between the treatment groups in terms of fusion, functional outcomes, or complications, except in 1 study that found higher rates of HA graft absorption. For the patients with cervical degenerative conditions, data from 8 comparative studies were included: 4 RCTs and 4 cohort studies (1 prospective and 3 retrospective studies). Synthetic grafts included HA, β-TCP/HA, PMMA, and biocompatible osteoconductive polymer (BOP). The PMMA and BOP grafts led to lower fusion rates, and PMMA, HA, and BOP had greater risks of graft fragmentation, settling, and instrumentation problems compared with iliac crest bone graft. The overall quality of evidence evaluating the potential use and superiority of the synthetic biological materials for lumbar and cervical fusion in this systematic review was low or insufficient, largely due to the high potential for bias and small sample sizes. Thus, definitive conclusions or recommendations regarding the use of these synthetic materials should be made cautiously and within the context of the limitations of the evidence.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of the Current Role of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilo A. Molina ◽  
Ziya L. Gokaslan ◽  
Daniel M. Sciubba
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Perioperative Morbidity ◽  
Neurological Improvement ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Minimally Invasive Spine ◽  
Spine Disease

Although increasingly aggressive decompression and resection methods have resulted in improved outcomes for patients with metastatic spine disease, these aggressive surgeries are not feasible for patients with numerous comorbid conditions. Such patients stand to benefit from management via minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS), given its association with decreased perioperative morbidity. We performed a systematic review of literature with the goal of evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of MIS in the setting of metastatic spine disease. Results suggest that MIS is an efficacious means of achieving neurological improvement and alleviating pain. In addition, data suggests that MIS offers decreased blood loss, operative time, and complication rates in comparison to standard open spine surgery. However, due to the paucity of studies and low class of available evidence, the ability to draw comprehensive conclusions is limited. Future investigations should be conducted comparing standard surgery versus MIS in a prospective fashion.

Minimally invasive spine surgery: systematic review

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Péter Banczerowski ◽  
Gábor Czigléczki ◽  
Zoltán Papp ◽  
Róbert Veres ◽  
Harry Zvi Rappaport ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive Spine

scholarly journals Outcome of minimal invasive surgery approach for spine infection: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 4422
Author(s):  
Ketut Gede Mulyadi Ridia
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimal Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Spine Infection ◽  
Minimally Invasive Spine

The concept of minimally invasive surgery has gained increasing popularity in the last several decades, are being introduced as an alternative to limit the surgical complications while achieving best possible outcome. While minimally invasive spine surgery holds promise for lower blood loss, faster patient recovery, shorter hospital stays, and the potential to transition procedures to the ambulatory setting, safety in spinal surgery remains paramount and has (appropriately) tempered some of the enthusiasm for the results of aggressive early adapters. Until now, there has been no literature summarizing the evidence of MIS outcome in treating spondylitis TB of the bone. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the outcome of minimal invasive surgery approach for spine infection. authors comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to search for studies about minimally invasive surgery as management of tuberculous spondylitis up to June 7th, 2019. The selection of appropriate studies was performed by independent investigators based on PRISMA guideline. Given the limited number of studies, there was no restriction in terms of patient’s demographics, the specific minimal invasive surgical method, and publication status. Authors identified the method for minimally invasive approach and open approach, the functional outcome, intraoperative outcome, radiological outcome, length of stay, follow up period, and complication. Authors found 81 articles from database. After evaluating full text, 8 articles (346 patients) were found to be eligible. More than 110 patients were treated with open spine surgery, while more than 270 patients were treated using minimally invasive spine surgery the minimal invasive methods were posterior pedicle screws fixation, plate fixation, lateral nail bar fixation, and bilateral pedicle screw fixation. The visualization methods include C-arm fluoroscopy, X-ray fluoroscopy. The follow-up period ranges from 1 to 40 months. The functional outcome were found to be satisfying with minimal complications. MIS yielded satisfactory result in comparison to conventional open surgery for spine infection. More long term future studies should be conducted to in order to search for more solid evidence regarding this claim.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document