Skip to main content

Table 8 Visual analog scale scores for leg pain

From: Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis

Author

MITLIF

OTLIF

Nr. of Pat.

Preoperative (mean ± SD)

Last follow-up (mean ± SD)

Nr. of Pat.

Preoperative (mean ± SD)

Last follow-up (mean ± SD)

Yang et al. 2017 [15]

21

5.2 ± 1.3

0.6 ± 0.7

20

4.9 ± 1.8

0.9 ± 0.9

Adogwa et al. 2015 [19]

40

7.07 ± 3.00

3.3 ± 4.53

108

6.58 ± 2.98

3.91 ± 4.10

Terman et al. 2014 [21]

53

7.1 (−)

4.7 (−)

21

7.1 (−)

4.3 (−)

Wong et al. 2014 [22]

144

8.9 (−)

1.15 (−)

54

8.82 (−)

1.30 (−)

Sulaiman et al. 2014 [13]

57

7.3 (−)

3.2 (−)

11

7.3 (−)

5.1 (−)

Gu et al. 2014 [24]

44

7.6 ± 0.9

1.7 ± 0.6

38

7.7 ± 0.9

1.8 ± 0.7

Brodano et al. 2013 [25]

30

7.8 ± 1.4

2.3 ± 1.3

34

8.1 ± 1.5

2.6 ± 1.2

Seng et al. 2013 [26]

40

5.9 ± 2.8

0.8 ± 0.4

40

5.7 ± 3.2

1.0 ± 0.3

Cheng et al. 2013 [27]

50

7.1 ± 0.7

2.9 ± 0.3

25

7.6 ± 0.5

3.5 ± 0.5

Rodriguez-Vela et al. 2013 [29]

21

7.31 ± 2.05

2.381 ± 2.65

20

7.53 ± 1.23

3.138 ± 2.69

Parker et al. 2013 [30]

50

6.5 ± 3.6

3.0 ± 3.0

50

6.9 ± 3.3

2.7 ± 2.6

Adogwa et al. 2012 [31]

14

5.99 ± 2.61

–

7

6.07 ± 2.69

1.58 (−)

Lee et al. 2012 [6]

72

5.8 ± 3.3

1.6 ± 2.7

72

6.2 ± 3.1

2.0 ± 2.8

Parker et al. 2012 [34]

15

8.5 ± 1.3

5.5 ± 2.9

15

8.2 ± 1.3

3.5 ± 3.5

Adogwa et al. 2010 [36]

15

8.5 ± 1.3

5.5 ± 2.9

15

8.2 ± 1.3

3.5 ± 3.5

Wang et al. 2010 [37]

25

–

1.0 ± 0.3

27

–

1.3 ± 0.4

Villavicen et al. 2010 [42]

76

7.4 (−)

3.4 (−)

63

8.0 (−)

3.2 (−)

Shunwu et al. 2009 [38]

32

6.8 ± 1.2

2.3 ± 1.5

30

6.8 ± 1.4

3.2 ± 1.2

Peng et al. 2009 [39]

29

7 (−)

1 (−)

29

6.5 (−)

1.1 (−)

Schizas et al. 2008 [41]

18

7.7 (−)

3.5 (−)

18

5.0 (−)

2.8 (−)

  1. MITLIF minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, OTLIF open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, Nr. number, Pat. patients, SD standard deviation