Home
ACE Reports
All Specialties All Specialties All Specialties Arthroplasty Arthroplasty Arthroplasty Evidence Based Medicine Evidence Based Medicine Evidence Based Medicine Foot & Ankle Foot & Ankle Foot & Ankle General Orthopaedics General Orthopaedics General Orthopaedics Hand & Wrist Hand & Wrist Hand & Wrist Metabolic Disorders Metabolic Disorders Metabolic Disorders Osteoarthritis Osteoarthritis Osteoarthritis Pediatric Orthopaedics Pediatric Orthopaedics Pediatric Orthopaedics Peri-Operative Peri-Operative Peri-Operative Physical Therapy & Rehab Physical Therapy & Rehab Physio & Rehab Shoulder & Elbow Shoulder & Elbow Shoulder & Elbow Spine Spine Spine Sports Medicine Sports Medicine Sports Medicine Trauma Trauma Trauma Tumour Tumour Tumour Author Interviews Author Interviews Author Interview Conference Report Conference Report Conference Reports
Original Content
News
All News All News All News Biologics Biologics Biologics Industry Industry Industry Innovation Innovation Innovation Research Research Research Studies Studies Studies Technology Technology Technology Other Other Other
Multimedia
All Themes All Themes All Themes Education Education Education Innovation Innovation Innovation Leadership Leadership Leadership Personal Growth Personal Growth Personal Growth Practice Practice Practice Research Research Research Other Other Other OrthoJoe OrthoJoe OrthoJoe Webinar Webinar Webinar OE Headline OE Headline OE Headline OrthoPod OrthoPod OrthoPod
About
Search
Home
ACE Reports
Arthroplasty Evidence Based Medicine Foot & Ankle General Orthopaedics Hand & Wrist Metabolic Disorders Osteoarthritis Pediatric Orthopaedics Peri-Operative Physical Therapy & Rehab Shoulder & Elbow Spine Sports Medicine Trauma Tumour Author Interviews Conference Report
Original Content
News
Biologics Industry Innovation Research Studies Technology Other
Multimedia
Education Innovation Leadership Personal Growth Practice Research Other OrthoJoe Webinar OE Headline OrthoPod
About
Search
AceReport Image
SPINE
Comparative efficacy of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion
Verified
This report has been verified by one or more authors of the original publication.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jun;472(6):1727-37. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3465-5.
Contributing Authors

CL Goldstein K Macwan K Sundararajan YR Rampersaud

26 studies were included in this systematic review (1 RCT, 11 prospective comparative cohort studies, 14 retrospective comparative cohort studies) comparing the surgical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and complication rates between minimally invasive surgery (MIS), and open transforanimal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Open) (856 patients in the MIS group and 806 patients in the Open group). Results indicated comparable surgical times between groups, but lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and longer fluoroscopy times with MIS. Clinical outcomes were similar between groups with a trend towards fewer complications with MIS. However, these results should be interpreted with caution as all studies were graded as low-quality, with a high risk for bias.

Unlock the full ACE Report

You have access to {0} free articles per month.
Click below to unlock and view this {1}
Unlock Now

Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics

Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics

Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions

Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics

Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidence content for just $1.99 per week.
{0} of {1} free articles

Become an OrthoEvidence Premium Member. Expand your perspective with high-quality evidence.

Upgrade Now
You've reached your limit of 4 free articles views this month

Access to OrthoEvidence for as little as $1.99 per week.

Stay connected with latest evidence. Cancel at any time
  • Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
  • Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
  • Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Upgrade Account
Upgrade
Search
Popular searches: Knee OA, PRP, What is the efficacy for prolotherapy for rotator cuff tendinopathy?
Are suture buttons or screw fixations more effective for syndesmosis injuries?
Close Search Window
Welcome Back!
Forgot Password?
Start your FREE trial today!

Account will be affiliated with

OR
Forgot Password?
OR
Please check your email

If an account exists with the provided email address, a password reset email will be sent to you. If you don't see an email, please check your spam or junk folder.

For further assistance, contact our support team.

Cite this Ace Report

OrthoEvidence. Comparative efficacy of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion . ACE Report. 2014;4(9):7. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Report/

Copy Citation
Share this Ace Report