Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery for the Treatment of Types B and C Thoracolumbar Injuries: A PRISMA Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND

Thoracic and lumbar spine injuries may require surgical management, particularly AO Spine types B and C injuries. Open reduction and fixation using pedicle screws, with or without fusion and/or decompression, is the gold standard surgical treatment for unstable injuries. Recent advances in instrumentation design have resulted in less-invasive surgeries. However, the literature is sparse about the effectiveness of these procedures for types B and C injuries. The objective is to compare the outcomes of conventional open surgery versus minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) for the treatment of AO Spine types B and C thoracolumbar injuries.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed to identify studies comparing outcomes achieved with open versus minimally invasive surgery in AO Spine types B and C thoracolumbar injury patients. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used.

RESULTS

Five retrospective case-control studies and 3 prospective studies met selection criteria. In general, most of the studies demonstrated that minimally invasive spine surgery is feasible for types B and C injuries, and associated with potential advantages like reduced blood loss, postoperative pain, and muscle injury, and shorter hospital stays. However, no differences were detected in major outcomes, like neurological status or disability.

CONCLUSIONS

Published literature currently suggests that minimally invasive spine surgery is a valid alternative for treating types B and C thoracolumbar injuries. However, further comparative prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary to establish the superiority of one approach over the other.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE