Literature DB >> 12394658

Single-level lumbar spine fusion: a comparison of anterior and posterior approaches.

Ben B Pradhan1, John A Nassar, Rick B Delamarter, Jeffrey C Wang.   

Abstract

This study is a retrospective review of 122 patients who underwent single-level lumbar spine fusion. The objectives were to directly compare perioperative morbidity and early results of single-level anterior interbody posterolateral intertransverse process lumbar spine fusion and to provide objective findings that may be useful in selecting surgical method. Lumbar spinal fusion is a well-recognized surgical treatment of intractable low back pain resulting from DDD or spondylolisthesis. Assessments of techniques, results, and outcomes have been published, but detailed head-to-head comparisons of anterior posterior approaches with objective operative and postoperative data are not available in the literature. A retrospective review of 122 patients who underwent either an anterior interbody or posterolateral intertransverse process (average follow-up 22 and 26 months, respectively) single-level instrumented lumbar spinal fusion was performed. Surgical, perioperative, and follow-up data were obtained directly from medical records. The findings compared included estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusion, number of units transfused, operative time, number of days in hospital, need for transitional facility care, complications, need for further surgery, radiographic fusion, and clinical results. There was significantly less blood loss, need for transfusion, amount of blood transfused, operative time, and hospital stay for patients with anterior fusion procedures (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in need for transitional facility care, complication rates, and given follow-up period in radiographic fusion rate and clinical outcome. Clinical results were significantly worse for those undergoing revision primary fusion (p < 0.01). The anterior approach to single-level lumbar fusion is associated with less morbidity than the posterolateral approach. This may in turn affect surgical outcome and hospital cost. However, both approaches to single-level lumbar fusion produce similar early fusion rates and clinical results. Revision fusions had poor early results regardless of approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12394658     DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200210000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  30 in total

1.  Perioperative morbidity and mortality after anterior, posterior, and anterior/posterior spine fusion surgery.

Authors:  Stavros G Memtsoudis; Vassilios I Vougioukas; Yan Ma; Licia K Gaber-Baylis; Federico P Girardi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone interbody cage in treatment of lumbar intervertebral foraminal stenosis : comparative study of two different types of cages.

Authors:  Chul-Bum Cho; Kyeong-Sik Ryu; Chun-Kun Park
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2010-05-31

3.  Virtually bloodless posterior midline exposure of the lumbar spine using the "para-midline" fatty plane.

Authors:  Michael H Moghimi; Dana A Leonard; Charles H Cho; Andrew J Schoenfeld; Philippe Phan; Mitchel B Harris; Christopher M Bono
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Surgical anatomy, transperitoneal approach, and early postoperative complications of a ventral lumbar spine surgical model in Lewis rats.

Authors:  Sheela R Damle; Agata Krzyzanowska; Robert J Frawley; Matthew E Cunningham
Journal:  Comp Med       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 0.982

5.  Anterior interbody arthrodesis with percutaneous posterior pedicle fixation for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  D Greg Anderson; Amirali Sayadipour; Kevin Shelby; Todd J Albert; Alexander R Vaccaro; Michael S Weinstein
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Comparison of ALIF vs. XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion: pros, cons, and literature review.

Authors:  Mark J Winder; Shanu Gambhir
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-03

7.  Impact of surgical approach on complication rates after elective spinal fusion (≥3 levels) for adult spine deformity.

Authors:  Aladine A Elsamadicy; Owoicho Adogwa; Shay Behrens; Amanda Sergesketter; Angel Chen; Ankit I Mehta; Raul A Vasquez; Joseph Cheng; Carlos A Bagley; Isaac O Karikari
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-03

8.  Access related complications in anterior lumbar surgery performed by spinal surgeons.

Authors:  Nasir A Quraishi; M Konig; S J Booker; M Shafafy; B M Boszczyk; M P Grevitt; H Mehdian; J K Webb
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  J Rodríguez-Vela; A Lobo-Escolar; E Joven-Aliaga; A Herrera; J Vicente; E Suñén; A Loste; A Tabuenca
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results.

Authors:  Markus Melloh; Lukas Staub; Emin Aghayev; Thomas Zweig; Thomas Barz; Jean-Claude Theis; Albert Chavanne; Dieter Grob; Max Aebi; Christoph Roeder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.