Comparison of Open Surgery versus Minimally Invasive Surgery in Non-severe Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Zhenxuan Shao; Haibo Liang; Sunlong Li; Zhaoming Ye; Xiangyang Wang

doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005011

Comparison of Open Surgery versus Minimally Invasive Surgery in Non-severe Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2024 Apr 10. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000005011. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Zhenxuan Shao^{1

2}, Haibo Liang¹, Sunlong Li¹, Zhaoming Ye², Xiangyang Wang¹

Affiliations

¹ The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University 325027 Wenzhou.
² The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine 310009 Hangzhou.

PMID: 38597179
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000005011

Abstract

Study design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery in correcting ADS.

Summary of background data: Adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) is a scoliosis secondary to degenerative changes in the intervertebral discs and facet joints in adults. Severe low back pain, radicular pain, and intermittent claudication are often present and require surgical treatment.

Methods: PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI) Database, Wanfang Data, Weipu Database, and China Biomedical Document Service System (CBM) were systematically searched for studies that focused on the clinical efficacy of minimally invasive surgery and open surgery to correct ADS.

Results: This meta-analysis included 11 studies, involving 1527 patients (581 in the MIS group and 946 in the open surgery group). Regarding surgery and outcome indicators, the operative time in the open surgery group was shorter, the MIS group had less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospitalization time, and lower incidence of serious postoperative complications. In terms of imaging parameters, although there was no significant difference in Cobb angle improvement and sagittal balance, the open surgery group exhibited better lumbar lordosis improvement and pelvic tilt improvement. In terms of clinical scores, including changes in the ODI index and VAS scores for low back and leg pain, similar improvements were appreciated across both groups.

Conclusions: In mild to moderate ADS, we found that the advantages of open surgery include greater improvement in lumbar lordosis and pelvic tilt angle and shorter operative time. The advantages of minimally invasive surgery are less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and fewer serious postoperative complications. There is no significant difference between the two surgical methods in terms of Cobb angle, clinical pain and SVA improvement.