Literature DB >> 27155825

Addition of TLIF does not improve outcome over standard posterior instrumented fusion. 5-10 years long-term Follow-up: results from a RCT.

Kristian Høy1, Kamilla Truong2, Thomas Andersen2, Cody Bünger2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The use of inter-body device in lumbar fusions has been difficult to validate, only few long-term RCT are available.
METHODS: Between 2003 and 2005, 100 patients entered a RCT between transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion (TLIF) or posterolateral instrumented lumbar fusion (PLF). The patients suffered from LBP due to segmental instability, disc degeneration, former disc herniation, spondylolisthesis Meyerding grade <2. Functional outcome parameters as Dallas pain questionnaire (DPQ), SF-36, low back pain questionnaire (LBRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) were registered prospectively, and after 5-10 years.
RESULTS: Follow-up reached 93 % of available, (94 %, 44 in the PLF's and 92 %, 44 in the TLIF group p = 0.76). Mean follow-up was 8.6 years (5-10 years). Mean age at follow-up was 59 years (34-76 years p = 0.19). Reoperation rate in a long-term perspective was equal among groups 14 %, each p = 0.24. Back pain was 3.8 (mean) (Scale 0-10), TLIF (3.65) PLF (3.97) p = 0.62, leg pain 2.68 (mean) (Scale 0-10) 2.90 (TLIF) and 2.48 (PLF) p = 0.34. No difference in functional outcome between groups p = 0.93. Overall, global satisfaction with the primary intervention at 8.6 year was 76 % (75 % TLIF and 77 % PLF) p = 0.85.
CONCLUSION: In a long-term perspective, patients with TLIF's did not experience better outcome scores.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Functional outcome; Long-term; Posterolateral instrumented lumbar fusion (PLF); Randomized clinical trial (RCT); Transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion (TLIF)

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27155825     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4592-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  31 in total

Review 1.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine.

Authors:  Z Audat; O Moutasem; K Yousef; B Mohammad
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.858

Review 3.  Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?

Authors:  Sheng-Dan Jiang; Jiang-Wei Chen; Lei-Sheng Jiang
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 4.  Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature.

Authors:  Paul Park; Hugh J Garton; Vishal C Gala; Julian T Hoff; John E McGillicuddy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  [Not Available].

Authors:  J G Harms; D Jeszenszky
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 1.154

6.  ISSLS Prize winner: Long-term follow-up suggests spinal fusion is associated with increased adjacent segment disc degeneration but without influence on clinical outcome: results of a combined follow-up from 4 randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Gunnar Leivseth; Jens-Ivar Brox; Peter Fritzell; Olle Hägg; Jeremy C T Fairbank
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up.

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

8.  Lumbar instrumented fusion compared with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic back pain after previous surgery for disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Jens Ivar Brox; Olav Reikerås; Øystein Nygaard; Roger Sørensen; Aage Indahl; Inger Holm; Anne Keller; Tor Ingebrigtsen; Oliver Grundnes; Johan Emil Lange; Astrid Friis
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2006-03-20       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  Chronic disabling low back pain syndrome caused by internal disc derangements. The results of disc excision and posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  C K Lee; P Vessa; J K Lee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior.

Authors:  G F Lawlis; R Cuencas; D Selby; C E McCoy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  9 in total

1.  Editorial on "Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone oblique cages with and without a titanium coating: a randomised clinical pilot study".

Authors:  Kristian Høy; Haisheng Li
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

2.  Complications in TLIF spondylodesis-do they influence the outcome for patients? A prospective two-center study.

Authors:  Philipp Poppenborg; Ulf Liljenqvist; Georg Gosheger; Albert Schulze Boevingloh; Lukas Lampe; Sebastian Schmeil; Tobias L Schulte; Tobias Lange
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Generalizing the results: how can we improve our reports?

Authors:  Mikhail Saltychev; Merja Eskola
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  A retrospective review comparing two-year patient-reported outcomes, costs, and healthcare resource utilization for TLIF vs. PLF for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Elliott Kim; Silky Chotai; David Stonko; Joseph Wick; Alex Sielatycki; Clinton J Devin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Disability, Health-Related Quality of Life and Mortality in Lumbar Spine Fusion Patients-A 5-Year Follow-Up and Comparison With a Population Sample.

Authors:  Leevi Toivonen; Liisa Pekkanen; Marko H Neva; Hannu Kautiainen; Kati Kyrölä; Ilkka Marttinen; Arja Häkkinen
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-11-18

7.  Comparison between modified facet joint fusion and posterolateral fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Zhimin Li; Zheng Li; Xin Chen; Xiao Han; Kuan Li; Shugang Li
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kanthika Wasinpongwanich; Tanawin Nopsopon; Krit Pongpirul
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-03-14

9.  Local Autograft Versus Iliac Crest Bone Graft PSF-Augmented TLIF in Low-Grade Isthmic and Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Ali M Abou-Madawi; Sherif H Ali; Ahmed M Abdelmonem
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-09-11
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.