Table 2. Series directly comparing open and minimally invasive techniques.
| Study | Open cohort | MIS cohort | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Operative | Clinical | n | Results | Clinical | ||||||||||||
| BL (mL) | OT | LOS (days) | NI (%) | PR (pt) | CR (%) | BL (mL) | OT | LOS (days) | NI (%) | PR (pt) | CR (%) | ||||||
| Chou and Lu, 2011 (47) | 5 | 3,120.0 | 6.8 hr | – | 100 | – | 20 | 5 | 1,320.0 | 7.8 hr | – | 100 | – | 20 | |||
| Fang et al. 2012 (48) | 17 | 1,721.0 | 403.0 min | – | 76.5 | 7.2 | 11.8 | 24 | 1,058.0 | 175.0 min | – | 91.7 | 6.6 | 29.2 | |||
| Hansen-Algenstaedt et al. 2017 (49) | 30 | 2,062.1 | 220.4 min | 21.1 | 33.3 | 5.6 | 40.0 | 30 | 1,156.0 | 190.9 min | 11.0 | 20 | 5.2 | 23.3 | |||
| Hikata et al. 2017 (50) | 25 | 714.3 | 188.9 min | – | 56 | 4.6 | 44 | 25 | 340.1 | 204.6 min | – | 56 | 4.3 | 12 | |||
| Huang et al. 2006 (51) | 17 | 1,162 | 180 min | – | 70.8 | – | 23.5 | 29 | 1,100.0 | 179.0 min | – | 69.2 | – | 20.7 | |||
| Kumar et al. 2017 (52) | 18 | 961.0 | 269.0 min | 13.0 | 50.0 | 3.5 | 16 | 27 | 184.0 | 253.0 min | 9.0 | 56 | 5.2 | 3 | |||
| Lau and Chou, 2015 (53) | 28 | 1,697.3 | 413.6 min | 11.4 | 42.9 | – | 21.4 | 21 | 916.7 | 452.4 min | 7.4 | 42.9 | – | 9.5 | |||
| Miscusi et al. 2015 (54) | 19 | 900.0 | 3.2 hr | 9.25 | 63 | – | 0 | 23 | 240.0 | 2.2 hr | 7.2 | 65 | – | 4.3 | |||
| Stoker et al. 2013 (55) | 4 | 1,250.0 | 518.0 min | 24.0 | – | – | 100 | 4 | 813.0 | 367.0 min | 5.8 | – | – | 100 | |||
| Average | – | 1,418.7 | 278.7 min | 14.7 | 55 | 5.2 | 26 | – | 745.0 | 230.9 min | 8.7 | 58 | 5.3 | 17 | |||
BL, mean blood loss; CR, complication rate; LOS, mean hospital length of stay; NI, percentage of patients improving by 1 or more ASIA/Frankel grades since prior to surgery; OT, mean operative time; PR, mean pain relief; VAS, visual analog scale; MIS, minimally invasive; ASIA, American Spinal Injury Association.