This study is a comparative, literature review. The aim of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review and a meta-analysis. Lumbar interbody fusion is a well-established surgical procedure for treating several spinal disorders. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was initially introduced in the early 1980s. To reduce approach-related morbidity associated with traditional open TLIF (OTLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MITLIF) was developed. We aimed to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review. We searched the online database PubMed (2005–2017), which yielded an initial 194 studies. We first searched the articles’ abstracts. Based on our inclusion criteria, we excluded 162 studies and included 32 studies: 18 prospective, 13 retrospective, and a single randomized controlled trial. Operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, radiation exposure time, complication rate, and pain scores (visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index) for both techniques were recorded and presented as means. We then performed a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis for all outcomes showed reduced blood loss (P < 0.00001) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001) for MITLIF compared with OTLIF, but with increased radiation exposure time with MITLIF (P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in operative time between techniques (P = 0.78). The complication rate was lower with MITLIF (11.3%) vs. OTLIF (14.2%), but not statistically significantly different (P = 0.05). No significant differences were found in visual analogue scores (back and leg) and Oswestry Disability Index scores between techniques, at the final follow-up. MITLIF and OTLIF provide equivalent long-term clinical outcomes. MITLIF had less tissue injury, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. MITLIF is also a safe alternative in obese patients and, in experienced hands, can also be used safely in select cases of spondylodiscitis even with epidural abscess. MITLIF is also a cost-saving procedure associated with reduced hospital and social costs. Long-term studies are required to better evaluate controversial items such as operative time.

Using a structured approach and expert consensus, we developed an evidence-based guideline on the diagnosis of back pain and the treatment of non-specific back pain in children and adolescents. The first part comprises etiology, risk factors, and diagnosis. The second part, published in the same issue, includes treatment and prevention. A comprehensive and systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant guidelines and studies. Based on the findings of this literature search, recommendations on risk factors and diagnosis were formulated and voted on by experts in a structured consensus-building process. Notable red flags for specific back pain and evidence-based risk factors for non-specific back pain in children and adolescents were identified. Only three evidence-based recommendations could be formulated for causes, red flags, and risk factors for back pain, while two recommendations are based on expert consensus. Regarding diagnostics, eight expert consensus recommendations and one evidence-based recommendation could be provided. Despite the importance of adequate diagnosis for the treatment of back pain in children and adolescents, results of this work confirm the deficit in research investment in this area.

Using a structured approach and expert consensus, we developed an evidence-based guideline on the treatment and prevention of non-specific back pain in children and adolescents. A comprehensive and systematic literature search identified relevant guidelines and studies. Based on the findings of this literature search, recommendations on treatment and prevention were formulated and voted on by experts in a structured consensus-building process. Physical therapy (particularly physical activity) and psychotherapy (particularly cognitive behavioral therapy) are recommended for treating pediatric non-specific back pain. Intensive interdisciplinary treatment programs should be provided for chronic and severe pain. Drug therapy should not be applied in children and adolescents. Further research on non-specific back pain in childhood and adolescence is strongly needed to reduce the imbalance between the high burden of non-specific back pain in childhood and adolescence and the low research activity in this field.

The treatment options for neuropathic pain caused by lumbar disc herniation have been debated controversially in the literature. Whether surgical or conservative therapy makes more sense in individual cases can hardly be answered. We have investigated whether a machine learning-based prediction of outcome, regarding neuropathic pain development, after lumbar disc herniation treatment is possible. The extensive datasets of 123 consecutive patients were used to predict the development of neuropathic pain, measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year after treatment of lumbar disc herniation in a machine learning approach. Using a decision tree regressor algorithm, a prediction quality within the limits of the minimum clinically important difference for the VAS and ODI value could be achieved. An analysis of the influencing factors of the algorithm reveals the important role of psychological factors as well as body weight and age with pre-existing conditions for an accurate prediction of neuropathic pain. The machine learning algorithm developed here can enable an assessment of the course of treatment after lumbar disc herniation. The early, comparative individual prediction of a therapy outcome is important to avoid unnecessary surgical therapies as well as insufficient conservative therapies and prevent the chronification of neuropathic pain.