|
| Recommendation | Population of the patient |
|
| As compared to open surgery conducted normally, MIS | Cervical disc herniation |
| 1. It has no effect on short-term functional outcomes. |
| 2. It does not have a negative impact on long-term performance. |
| 3. It does not alleviate acute arm discomfort. |
| 4. It does not supply relief from persistent arm discomfort. |
| 5. It supplies immediate relief from severe neck aches. |
| 6. Does not supply relief from chronic neck pain. |
| When compared to conventional open surgery, MIS | Lumbar disc herniation |
| 1. It does not improve function in the short term. |
| 2. It does not have a negative impact on long-term performance. |
| 3. It does not supply enough relief for leg pain. |
| 4. Low back pain is not well relieved by this medication. |
| 5. It has a greater likelihood of requiring rehospitalization. |
| 6. The quality of life is negatively affected by the procedure. |
| 7. The chance of surgical site and infection issues is reduced. |
| 8. It is possible that it is associated with a shorter period of hospital stay. |
| 9. It does not show Oswestry Disability Index scores after at least six months after surgery interns of statistically significant difference. |
| 10. In addition, it exposes the surgeon to more than ten times the amount of radiation that would otherwise be supplied to the thyroid or the eyes. |
| 11. Exposure to more than 14 times the quantity of radiation supplied to the chest is imposed on the surgeon. |
| 12. Subjects the surgeon’s hand to more than 22 times the amount of radiation received by the patient. |
| According to the existing practice of open surgery, as compared to open surgery as it is now practiced, | Disc herniation |
| 1. The incidence of nerve root damage is growing. |
| 2. The incidence of nerve root injuries is decreasing. |
| 3. A rise in the number of inadvertent durotomies that occur |
| 4. Increased reoperation rates are becoming more common as a trend. |
| 5. Infection-prevention trends in the United States |
| When comparing MIS with TLIF and open TLIF | Posterior lumbar fusion |
| 1. leads to much less blood loss than the latter. |
| 2. It leads to a considerable reduction in back pain on the second postoperative day after surgery. |
| 3. It involves much greater amounts of intraoperative radiation time. |
| 4. It does not need a major increase in overall operating time. |
| 5. Despite considerable improvement in the ODI over a brief period, there is no statistically meaningful difference in terms of long-term clinical outcome. |
| 6. There is no statistically significant difference in the radiographic outcome. |
| 7. It has led to reducing the number of hospitalizations of the patients |
| 8. It has reduced the amount of time necessary to a normal life routine. |
| 9. It has reduced indirect expenses. |
| 10. During a two-year period, he has cut social expenses. |
| 11. It has resulted in increased narcotic independence |
| When compared to open TLIF/PLIF, MIS-TLIF/PLIF has the following benefits over the former: | Posterior lumbar fusion |
| 1. A faster rate of revision. |
| 2. A higher risk of hospital readmission. |
| 3. There has been no change in the incidence of surgical complications since the study began. |
| 4. A reduction in the number of medical problems |
|
