Literature DB >> 23511641

Sagittal alignment after lumbar interbody fusion: comparing anterior, lateral, and transforaminal approaches.

Robert G Watkins1, Robert Hanna, David Chang, Robert G Watkins1.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective radiographic analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To determine which lumbar interbody technique is most effective for restoring lordosis, increasing disk height, and reducing spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar interbody fusions are performed in hopes of increasing fusion potential, correcting deformity, and indirectly decompressing nerve roots. No published study has directly compared anterior, lateral, and transforaminal lumber interbody fusions in terms of ability to restore lordosis, increase disk height, and reduce spondylolisthesis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lumbar interbody fusion techniques were retrospectively compared in terms of improvement of lordosis, disk height, and spondylolisthesis between preoperative and follow-up lateral radiographs.
RESULTS: A total of 220 consecutive patients with 309 operative levels were compared by surgery type: anterior (184 levels), lateral (86 levels), and transforaminal (39 levels). Average follow-up was 19.2 months (range, 1-56 mo), with no statistical difference between the groups. Intragroup analysis showed that the anterior (4.5 degrees) and lateral (2.2 degrees) groups significantly improved lordosis from preoperative to follow-up, whereas the transforaminal (0.8 degrees) group did not. Intergroup analysis showed that the anterior group significantly improved lordosis more than both the lateral and transforaminal groups. The anterior (2.2 mm) and lateral (2.0 mm) groups both significantly improved disk height more than the transforaminal (0.5 mm) group. All 3 groups significantly reduced spondylolisthesis, with no difference between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: After lumbar interbody fusion, improvement of lordosis was significant for both the anterior and lateral groups, but not the transforaminal group. Intergroup analysis showed the anterior group had significantly improved lordosis compared to both the other groups. The anterior and lateral groups had significantly increased disk height compared to the transforaminal group. All the 3 groups significantly reduced spondylolisthesis, with no difference between the groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 23511641     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828a8447

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics.

Authors:  Jeff A Lehmen; Edward J Gerber
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF.

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Kevin Phan; Greg Malham; Kevin Seex; Prashanth J Rao
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-12

Review 3.  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

4.  Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction.

Authors:  Priyan R Landham; Angus S Don; Peter A Robertson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Radiographic Comparison of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Traditional Fusion Approaches: Analysis of Sagittal Contour Change.

Authors:  Jonathan N Sembrano; Sharon C Yson; Ryan D Horazdovsky; Edward Rainier G Santos; David W Polly
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-05-19

6.  A comparative morphometric analysis of operative windows for performing OLIF among normal and deformity group in lower lumbar spine.

Authors:  Devanand Degulmadi; Vatsal Parmar; Bharat Dave; Ajay Krishnan; Shivanand Mayi; Ravi Ranjan Rai; Shiv Bali; Prarthan Amin; Pritesh Agrawal
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2022-09-30

7.  Non-union rate with stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Robert Watkins; Robert Watkins; Robert Hanna
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.889

8.  Analysis of the correlative factors in the selection of interbody fusion cage height in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Hongli Wang; Wenjie Chen; Jianyuan Jiang; Feizhou Lu; Xiaosheng Ma; Xinlei Xia
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Mini-Open Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Corrective Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity.

Authors:  Chong-Suh Lee; Se-Jun Park; Sung-Soo Chung; Jun-Young Lee; Tae-Hoon Yum; Seong-Kee Shin
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-12-08

10.  A retrospective comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes in single-level degenerative lumbar disease undergoing anterior versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Ziev B Moses; Sharmeen Razvi; Seok Yoon Oh; Andrew Platt; Kevin C Keegan; Fadi Hamati; Christopher Witiw; Brian T David; Ricardo B V Fontes; Harel Deutsch; John E O'Toole; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.