Comparison of Fusion Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Minimally Invasive and Conventional Posterior Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND

The fusion rate, clinical efficacy, and complications of minimally invasive fusion surgery and open fusion surgery in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease are still unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WANFANG databases.

RESULTS

This study included 38 retrospective studies involving 3097 patients. Five intervention modalities were considered: unilateral biportal endoscopic-lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF), percutaneous endoscopic-lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF), minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Quality assessment indicated that each study met acceptable quality standards. PE-LIF demonstrated reduced low back pain (Odds Ratio = 0.50, Confidence Interval: 0.38-0.65) and lower complication rate (Odds Ratio = 0.46, Confidence Interval: 0.25-0.87) compared to PLIF. However, in indirect comparisons, PE-LIF showed the lowest fusion rates, with the ranking as follows: UBE-LIF (83.2%) > MIS-TLIF (59.6%) > TLIF (44.3%) > PLIF (39.8%) > PE-LIF (23.1%). With respect to low back pain relief, PE-LIF yielded the best results, with the order of relief as follows: PE-LIF (96.4%) > MIS-TLIF (64.8%) > UBE-LIF (62.6%) > TLIF (23.0%) > PLIF (3.2%). Global and local consistency tests showed satisfactory results, and heterogeneity tests indicated good stability.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional open surgery, minimally invasive fusion surgery offered better scores for low back pain and Oswestry Disability Index, lower complication rates, reduced bleeding, and shorter hospital stays. However, minimally invasive fusion surgery did not show a significant advantage in terms of fusion rate and had a longer operative time.