Superior facet joint violation between open and minimally invasive techniques in lumbar fusion surgery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Superior facet joint violation (FJV) is a potential risk factor for adjacent segment disease following lumbar fusion surgery. We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare screw-related superior FJV rates between the open and different minimally invasive (MI) techniques-fluoroscopy-based, 3D-image navigation, and navigation with robotic assistance-in adult lumbar fusion surgery.

Methods: We searched original articles comparing the rates of screw-related FJV between the open and different MI techniques in adult lumbar fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2021. We compared the numbers of top-level pedicle screws and associated superior FJVs in the main analyses and performed subgroup analysis based on different MI techniques to examine whether individual MI approaches differed in superior FJV rate. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated in a random-effect meta-analysis.

Results: Included in the meta-analysis were 16 articles with 2655 patients and 4638 top-level pedicle screws. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in superior FJV rates between the MI and open groups (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.62-1.28). The subgroup analysis demonstrated that the overall rates of superior FJV were 27.1% (411/1518) for fluoroscopy-based, 7.1% (43/603) for 3D-image navigation, and 3.2% (7/216) for navigation with robotic assistance. Compared with the open method, the overall RRs were 1.53 (95% CI: 1.19-1.96) for fluoroscopy-based, 0.41 (95% CI: 0.22-0.75) for 3D-image navigation, and 0.25 (95% CI: 0.08-0.72) for navigation with robotic assistance.

Conclusion: Among the three common MI techniques, fluoroscopy-based can be associated with a higher risk of superior FJV, while both 3D-image navigation and navigation with robotic assistance may be associated with lower risks as compared with the open method. Considering the limitations of the study, more trials are needed to prove these clinical findings.