Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 10, 2026
Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
Published on: August 6, 2019
Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for intraspinal tumors: a meta-analysis based on 15 observational
Chuanhui Xun1, Haonan Li1, Yukun Hu1
1Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, 137 Liyushan Avenue, Xinshi District, Urumqi, 830054, Xinjiang, China.
Objectives:
This study compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) for patients with intraspinal tumors.
Methods:
A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases was conducted to identify relevant studies. Continuous variables, including estimated blood loss, surgery duration, time to mobilization, length of hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and incision length, were reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Dichotomous variables, such as gross total resection, blood transfusion, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, and overall complications, were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.
Results:
Fifteen studies, comprising a total of 943 patients (488 in the MIS group and 455 in the OS group), met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis indicated that MIS significantly reduced estimated blood loss (MD = -76.73, 95% CI -102.56 to -50.91, P < 0.01), incision length (MD = -4.09, 95% CI -5.20 to -2.97, P < 0.01), VAS score (MD = -0.79, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.11, P = 0.02), time to mobilization (MD = -4.27, 95% CI -5.12 to -3.43, P < 0.01), length of hospitalization, (MD = -3.94, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.84, P < 0.01), and overall complications (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, P < 0.01) compared with OS. No significant differences were observed in surgery duration (MD = -28.67, 95% CI -58.58 to 1.23, P = 0.06), gross total resection (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07, P = 0.92), blood transfusion (RR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.04, P = 0.06), or CSF leakage (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04, P = 0.07).
Conclusion:
Findings from this analysis suggest that MIS offers clinical advantages over OS in reducing blood loss, incision length, pain, time to mobilization, length of hospitalization, and overall complication rates.
