A comparison of the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in treating cauda equina syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) in treating cauda equina syndrome (CES).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted, searching relevant databases for studies investigating MIS and/or OS in treating CES. Pooled outcomes and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were meta-analyzed via random-effects models.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled mean operation times were shorter for MIS (75.4 min; 95 %CI: 40.8, 110.0) than OS (155.1 min; 121.3, 188.9). Similarly, mean hospital stay was shorter for MIS (4.08 days; 2.77, 5.39 vs. 8.85 days; 6.56, 11.13). Mean blood loss was smaller for MIS (71.7 mL; 0, 154.5 vs. 366.5; 119.1, 614.0). Mean post-op lumbar/back visual analogue scale (VAS) score was lower for MIS (3.65; 2.75, 4.56 vs. 5.80; 4.55, 7.05). Mean post-op leg VAS score was 1.27 (0.41, 21.4) for MIS and 1.29 (0.47, 2.12) for OS. Mean complete bladder recovery rate was 81.0% (55.0%, 94.0%) for MIS and 75.0% (44.0%, 92.0%) for OS. Mean complete motor recovery rate was larger for MIS (70.0%; 48.0, 85.0 vs. 42.0%; 34.0, 51.0). Mean percentages of "excellent" patient outcomes were equal for MIS (64.0%; 48.0%, 77.0%) and OS (64.0%; 22.0%, 92.0%).

CONCLUSION

MIS for CES was associated with reduced operative time, length of stay, and blood loss, compared to OS. MIS was also associated with better post-operative lumbar/back and leg VAS scores and complete motor and bladder recovery rates. MIS and OS produced an equal average percentage of "excellent" patient outcomes.