Literature DB >> 28189865

Comparison of Outcomes of Anterior, Posterior, and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery at a Single Lumbar Level with Degenerative Spinal Disease.

Nam Lee1, Keung Nyun Kim2, Seong Yi1, Yoon Ha1, Dong Ah Shin1, Do Heum Yoon1, Keun Su Kim3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The fusion rate in spinal surgery may vary in relation to the technique, and it remains unknown which surgical technique provides the best fusion rate and surgical outcome. We aimed to compare radiologic and surgical results between 3 surgical techniques used for lumbar interbody fusion.
METHODS: Participants included 77 patients diagnosed with degenerative spinal stenosis including spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to surgical technique: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF, n = 26), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF, n = 21), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, n = 30). Various radiologic parameters were measured, including fusion rates.
RESULTS: Significant changes after surgery were observed in the ALIF group for the percentage of vertebral body slippage, anterior disk height, posterior disk height, and segmental range of movement (ROM). The fusion rate on computed tomography (CT) scan at the final follow-up was 69.2% in the ALIF group, 72.7% in the TLIF group, and 64.3% in the PLIF group. The cage subsidence rate 2 years after surgery was 15.4% in the ALIF group, 38.1% in the TLIF group, and 10% in the PLIF group.
CONCLUSIONS: ALIF was associated with better restoration of segmental lordosis. The fusion rate on CT scan and with segmental ROM did not differ between the 3 groups. TLIF was associated with a better postoperative visual analog scale. PLIF showed the lowest cage subsidence rate. Therefore, it is difficult to know which surgical technique is better among the 3 groups because each surgical method has its own advantages.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion; Computed tomography (CT); Fusion rate; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; Subsidence; Transforaminal interbody fusion

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28189865     DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.01.114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World Neurosurg        ISSN: 1878-8750            Impact factor:   2.104


  24 in total

Review 1.  Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of cortical bone trajectory screw fixation and traditional pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jizhou Wang; Xiaoqi He; Tianwei Sun
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Prediction of complications and fusion outcomes of fused lumbar spine with or without fixation system under whole-body vibration.

Authors:  Qing-Dong Wang; Li-Xin Guo
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Importance of the epiphyseal ring in OLIF stand-alone surgery: a biomechanical study on cadaveric spines.

Authors:  Xuyang Zhang; Hao Wu; Yilei Chen; Junhui Liu; Jian Chen; Teng Zhang; ZhaoFeng Zhou; Shunwu Fan; Patricia Dolan; Michael Anthony Adams; Fengdong Zhao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Fusion rate and influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody arthrodesis for degenerative spine diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  M Formica; D Vallerga; A Zanirato; L Cavagnaro; M Basso; S Divano; L Mosconi; E Quarto; G Siri; L Felli
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2020-01-01

5.  Relationship between sagittal balance and adjacent segment disease in surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: meta-analysis and implications for choice of fusion technique.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Alexander Nazareth; Awais K Hussain; Adam A Dmytriw; Mithun Nambiar; Damian Nguyen; Jack Kerferd; Steven Phan; Chet Sutterlin; Samuel K Cho; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a silicon nitride cage demonstrates early radiographic fusion.

Authors:  Mitchell T Gray; Kyle P Davis; Bryan J McEntire; B Sonny Bal; Micah W Smith
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-03

7.  Innovative Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Instability: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Peng Yin; Yi Ding; Lijin Zhou; Chunyang Xu; Haifeng Gao; Daming Pang; Yong Hai; Jincai Yang
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 3.133

8.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable articulating interbody spacers significantly improves radiographic outcomes compared to static interbody spacers.

Authors:  Anthony J Russo; Steven A Schopler; Katelyn J Stetzner; Torrey Shirk
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-09

9.  Safety of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedures for Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.

Authors:  Kuan-Yu Chi; Shih-Hao Cheng; Yu-Kai Kuo; En-Yuan Lin; Yi-No Kang
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-07-28

10.  Expandable spacers provide better functional outcomes than static spacers in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  M Adam Kremer; Jefferson Alferink; Stacie Wynsma; Torrey Shirk; Charles Ledonio
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.