Jiaming Liu1, Huilin Deng1, Xinhua Long1, Xuanyin Chen1, Risheng Xu2, Zhili Liu3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Donghu District, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans St, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. rxu4@jhmi.edu. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Donghu District, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, People's Republic of China. liuzhiliyfy@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are accepted surgical techniques for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). However, it is still unclear one technique offers distinct advantages over the other. OBJECTIVE: A retrospective study was performed to compare perioperative complications and functional outcomes of patients undergoing TLIF versus PLIF for DLS. METHODS: A total of 226 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for treatment of DLS at three institutions were evaluated from January 2012 to December 2014. In this series, 125 patients underwent PLIF and 101 received TLIF. The operative time, blood loss, allogeneic blood transfusion rate and perioperative complications (including re-operative rate, nerve root injury, dural tear, wound infection) were compared between the two groups. Pain (VAS) and functional outcomes of patients (Kirkaldy-Willis criteria) were quantified before surgery and 1 week after surgery. RESULTS: Patients involved in the two groups had similar baseline demographic, clinical and radiographic characteristics. The PLIF group was associated with a higher incidence of post-operative iatrogenic nerve root dysfunction [12 cases (9.6 %) versus 2 cases (1.9 %), P = 0.018] and dural tears [15 cases (12 %) versus 4 cases (3.9 %), P = 0.030]. The re-operation rate was significantly higher in patients undergoing PLIF [13 cases (10.4 %) versus 2 cases (1.9 %), P = 0.011]. In addition, intra-operative blood loss, operative times, and allogeneic blood transfusion rates were higher in the PLIF group when compared to the TLIF group (P < 0.05). The wound infection rate of the PLIF group was similar to that of the TLIF group (7.2 versus 5.0 %, P = 0.486). VAS scores were decreased from 7.08 ± 1.13 to 2.84 ± 0.89 in the PLIF group, and from 7.18 ± 1.09 to 2.84 ± 0.91 in the TLIF group, respectively (P = 0.32). 85.6 % of patients in the TLIF group had good or excellent functional outcomes within the first post-operative week compared to 83.2 % in the PLIF group (P = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Both PLIF and TLIF were equally beneficial in improving short-term functional outcomes for patients with DLS. However, PLIFs were associated with statistically significant higher incidences of nerve root injury, dural tears, allogeneic blood transfusion, increased intra-operative times, blood loss and re-operations. Therefore, caution should be exercised when considering PLIFs.
BACKGROUND: Both posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are accepted surgical techniques for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). However, it is still unclear one technique offers distinct advantages over the other. OBJECTIVE: A retrospective study was performed to compare perioperative complications and functional outcomes of patients undergoing TLIF versus PLIF for DLS. METHODS: A total of 226 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for treatment of DLS at three institutions were evaluated from January 2012 to December 2014. In this series, 125 patients underwent PLIF and 101 received TLIF. The operative time, blood loss, allogeneic blood transfusion rate and perioperative complications (including re-operative rate, nerve root injury, dural tear, wound infection) were compared between the two groups. Pain (VAS) and functional outcomes of patients (Kirkaldy-Willis criteria) were quantified before surgery and 1 week after surgery. RESULTS:Patients involved in the two groups had similar baseline demographic, clinical and radiographic characteristics. The PLIF group was associated with a higher incidence of post-operative iatrogenic nerve root dysfunction [12 cases (9.6 %) versus 2 cases (1.9 %), P = 0.018] and dural tears [15 cases (12 %) versus 4 cases (3.9 %), P = 0.030]. The re-operation rate was significantly higher in patients undergoing PLIF [13 cases (10.4 %) versus 2 cases (1.9 %), P = 0.011]. In addition, intra-operative blood loss, operative times, and allogeneic blood transfusion rates were higher in the PLIF group when compared to the TLIF group (P < 0.05). The wound infection rate of the PLIF group was similar to that of the TLIF group (7.2 versus 5.0 %, P = 0.486). VAS scores were decreased from 7.08 ± 1.13 to 2.84 ± 0.89 in the PLIF group, and from 7.18 ± 1.09 to 2.84 ± 0.91 in the TLIF group, respectively (P = 0.32). 85.6 % of patients in the TLIF group had good or excellent functional outcomes within the first post-operative week compared to 83.2 % in the PLIF group (P = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Both PLIF and TLIF were equally beneficial in improving short-term functional outcomes for patients with DLS. However, PLIFs were associated with statistically significant higher incidences of nerve root injury, dural tears, allogeneic blood transfusion, increased intra-operative times, blood loss and re-operations. Therefore, caution should be exercised when considering PLIFs.
Authors: Kristian Høy; Cody Bünger; Bent Niederman; Peter Helmig; Ebbe Stender Hansen; Haisheng Li; Thomas Andersen Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2013-04-13 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Zhijie Yang; Bo Liu; Haiyang Lan; He Ye; Jie Chen; Huiqiang Xia; Ye Zhang; Fei Han Journal: Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi Date: 2020-05-15