Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the pooled incidence of major complications reported after open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Studies reporting surgical complications in patients undergoing open TLIF were included. Data on dural tear, surgical site infection, neurological deficit, pseudoarthrosis, and reoperation were extracted. Pooled complication rates were calculated using a random-effects model.
Results: Seven studies involving a total of 402 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled incidence rates were 7.5% (95% CI: 3.7–11.3) for dural tear, 3.5% (95% CI: 1.5–5.5) for infection, 1.9% (95% CI: 0–3.7) for neurological deficit, 2.0% (95% CI: 0.05–4.0) for pseudoarthrosis, and 2.6% (95% CI: 0.5–4.7) for reoperation. No significant heterogeneity was observed across studies (I² = 0%).
Conclusion: Complication rates following open TLIF surgery appear to be generally low. Dural tear was the most frequently reported complication, while infection and neurological deficit rates were consistent with previously reported literature. Larger prospective studies are needed to better define the safety profile of open TLIF surgery.
Keywords: open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, lumbar vertebrae, spinal fusion, postoperative complications, meta-analysis
References
- Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, et al. Perioperative surgical complications of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center experience. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 16: 44-50. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.9.SPINE11373
- Kaiser MG, Eck JC, Groff MW, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 1: introduction and methodology. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 21: 2-6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14257
- Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1982; 120: 343-347. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1051624
- de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 2017; 17: 1712-1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.018
- Selznick LA, Shamji MF, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22: 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318169026f
- Khan IS, Sonig A, Thakur JD, Bollam P, Nanda A. Perioperative complications in patients undergoing open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as a revision surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 18: 260-264. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.11.SPINE12558
- Kim CH, Easley K, Lee JS, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal ınterbody lumbar fusion. Global Spine J 2020; 10: 143S-150S. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219882344
- Arya S, Kaji AH, Boermeester MA. PRISMA Reporting guidelines for meta-analyses and systematic reviews. JAMA Surg 2021; 156: 789-790. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0546
- Murrad K, Al Harbi Y, Alsabbagh LM, Alwehaibi K, Al Salhi R, Awwad W. Clinical outcomes of the transforaminal lumbar ınterbody fusion technique among patients with low back pain showing type 1 modic changes on MRI. Cureus 2024; 16: e61745. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.61745
- Hu ZX, Han J, Sun YF, Tian XL. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segment lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2022; 26: 6678-6690. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202209_29769
- Wu AM, Hu ZC, Li XB, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single segmental lumbar spondylolisthesis: minimum two-year follow up. Ann Transl Med 2018; 6: 105. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.02.11
- Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2015; 24: 1017-1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3903-4
- Hartmann S, Lang A, Lener S, Abramovic A, Grassner L, Thomé C. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome. Neurosurg Rev 2022; 45: 3417-3426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-022-01845-w
- Tang T, Wan B, Zhang X, Zhang A. Impact of obesity on outcomes of minimally ınvasive transforaminal lumbar ınterbody fusion surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2024; 185: e835-e849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2024.02.136
- Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 2015; 1: 2-18. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05
- Chrastil J, Patel AA. Complications associated with posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2012; 20: 283-291. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-20-05-283
- Zhang M, Liu X, Wang G, Liu H, Zhu F, Mou H. Risk factors associated with cage retropulsion after lumbar ınterbody fusion. Turk Neurosurg 2024; 34: 274-282. https://doi.org/10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.43124-23.2
Copyright and license
Copyright © 2026 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
