中文摘要：

背景：微创经椎间孔椎间融合治疗腰椎滑脱具有组织损伤小、术中出血少、术后住院时间短等优势,但其与开放经椎间孔椎体间融合治疗腰椎滑脱的疗效比较没有经过严格的循证医学检验。目的：系统性评价微创经椎间孔椎体间融合和开放经椎间孔椎体间融合治疗腰椎滑脱的临床疗效及安全性。方法：计算机检索万方数据库、CNKI、PubM ed、Cochrane Library等数据库,以腰椎滑脱、微创、开放、经椎间孔椎体间融合术、minimally invasive、open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion、微创经椎间孔椎体间融合、开放经椎间孔椎体间融合等为检索词。由2名作者独立对纳入的文献进行质量评价及数据提取,用Rev Man 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果与结论：共纳入10篇文献,其中回顾性研究7篇,随机对照研究3篇,共纳入病例963例,微创组489例,开放组474例。①Meta分析结果显示：在手术时间、术后并发症发生率、末次随访融合率等方面2组差异无显著性意义,说明2种术式均能明显改善患者疼痛及功能障碍;②在术中出血量、术中射线暴露时间等方面差异有显著性意义;③结果说明,微创经椎间孔椎体间融合创伤小、术中及术后出血少,与开放经椎间孔椎体间融合相比具有相似的术后功能改善情况,且不增加手术时间和并发症的发生率,是一种安全、有效的手术方式。

英文摘要：

BACKGROUND： Minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion （Mis-TLIF） for spondylolisthesis has been introduced to reduce muscle trauma, minimize blood loss, and achieve earlier rehabilitation. However, there is a lack of evidence-based medicine concerning the therapeutic efficacy of Mis-TLIF versus open TLIF for spondylolisthesis. OBJECTIVE： To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Mis-TLIF versus open TLIF for spondylolisthesis.METHODS： WanFang, CNKI, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the keywords of ＆quot;spondylolisthesis, minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion, open transforaminal interbody fusion＆quot; in English and Chinese, respectively. The quality evaluation and data extraction of the included literatures were conducted by two authors independently. A meta-analysis was performed on RevMan 5.3 software.RESULTS AND CONCLUSION： Ten literatures were included, including 7 retrospective and 3 randomized controlled trials; 963 cases were enrolled （489 cases of Mis-TLIF, 474 cases of open TLIF）. （1） Meta-analysis results showed that there were no significant differences in the operation time, postoperative complication rate, and fusion rate at the last follow-up between two groups, suggesting that the two methods expose analogical effects on the pain relief and functional recovery. （2） There were significant differences in the intraoperative blood loss and radiological times between two methods. （3） To conclude, Mis-TLIF holds similar operation time, incidence of complications and functional recovery with open TLIF, accompanied by minimized trauma, and reduced intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, which is considered as a safe and effective surgical method.