Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Sep;12(3):328-339.
doi: 10.1007/s12178-019-09574-2. Epub 2019 Jul 13.

A Systematic Review of Complications Following Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Including Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Hannah Weiss  1 , Roxanna M Garcia  1   2 , Ben Hopkins  1 , Nathan Shlobin  3 , Nader S Dahdaleh  4
Affiliations
Review

A Systematic Review of Complications Following Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Including Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Hannah Weiss et al. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose of review: To assess complications after minimally invasive spinal surgeries including transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) by reviewing the most recent literature.

Recent findings: Current literature demonstrates that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in spine has improved clinical outcomes and reduced complications when compared with open spinal procedures. Recent studies describing MI-TLIF primarily for degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, and vertebral canal stenosis cite over 89 discrete complications, with the most common being radiculitis (ranging from 2.8 to 57.1%), screw malposition (0.3-12.7%), and incidental durotomy (0.3-8.6%). Minimally invasive spine surgery has a distinct set of complications in comparison with other spinal procedures. These complications vary based on the exact MIS procedure and indication. The most frequently documented MI-TLIF complications in current published literature were radiculitis, screw malposition, and incidental durotomy.

Keywords: Complications; Minimally invasive; Spine; Systematic review; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Hannah Weiss, Roxanna Garcia, Ben Hopkins, Nathan Shlobin, and Nader Dahdaleh declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA systematic review flow chart. PRISMA flow chart displaying the systematic review of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI. Back pain prevalence and visit rates: estimates from US national surveys, 2002. Spine. 2006;31:2724–2727. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000244618.06877.cd. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Khan NR, et al. Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery. 77:847–74 discussion 874 (2015). - PubMed
    1. Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1017–1030. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3903-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Xie L, Wu W-J, Liang Y. Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis. Chin Med J. 2016;129:1969–86 This recent meta-analysis provides one of the most updated reviews of the literature on open-TLIF vs MIS-TLIF. The findings indicated that MIS-TLIF has fusion rates similar to open-TLIF, but with better functional outcome, decreased blood loss, decreased time to ambulation, and decreased length of hospital stay when compared with patients undergoing open-TLIF. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maroon JC. Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(supplement 2):S137–S145. - PubMed