Heeren Makanji1, Andrew J Schoenfeld1, Amandeep Bhalla2, Christopher M Bono3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 2. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. cmbono@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders is among the most common spine surgical procedures performed. The purpose of this study was to analyze fusion, complications, and clinical success for lumbar fusion performed with various surgical techniques as reported in the literature from 2000 to 2015 and compare with previous critical analysis of outcomes from 1980 to 2000. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature to identify all studies of adult lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders published between January 1, 2000, and August 31, 2015, was performed adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they enabled analysis of outcomes of individual fusion techniques. RESULTS: Data from 8599 patients extracted from 160 studies were recorded. Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF and TLIF) had significantly higher fusion rates compared to instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) (OR 3.20 and 2.46, respectively). Clinical success rate was statistically higher with MIS versus non-MIS fusion (OR 2.44). While methodological quality was higher in studies from 2000 to 2015 than prior decades, the outcomes of comparable procedures were about the same. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar fusions for degenerative disorders from 2000 to 2015 demonstrate a trend toward more interbody fusions and MIS techniques than prior decades. Clinical success with MIS appears more likely than with non-MIS fusions, despite equivalent fusion and complication rates. While these data are intriguing, they should be interpreted cautiously considering the level of heterogeneity of the studies available. Further, high-quality comparative studies are warranted to better understand the relative benefits of more complex interbody and MIS fusions for these conditions. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: Lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders is among the most common spine surgical procedures performed. The purpose of this study was to analyze fusion, complications, and clinical success for lumbar fusion performed with various surgical techniques as reported in the literature from 2000 to 2015 and compare with previous critical analysis of outcomes from 1980 to 2000. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature to identify all studies of adult lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders published between January 1, 2000, and August 31, 2015, was performed adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they enabled analysis of outcomes of individual fusion techniques. RESULTS: Data from 8599 patients extracted from 160 studies were recorded. Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF and TLIF) had significantly higher fusion rates compared to instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) (OR 3.20 and 2.46, respectively). Clinical success rate was statistically higher with MIS versus non-MIS fusion (OR 2.44). While methodological quality was higher in studies from 2000 to 2015 than prior decades, the outcomes of comparable procedures were about the same. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar fusions for degenerative disorders from 2000 to 2015 demonstrate a trend toward more interbody fusions and MIS techniques than prior decades. Clinical success with MIS appears more likely than with non-MIS fusions, despite equivalent fusion and complication rates. While these data are intriguing, they should be interpreted cautiously considering the level of heterogeneity of the studies available. Further, high-quality comparative studies are warranted to better understand the relative benefits of more complex interbody and MIS fusions for these conditions. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Steven Glassman; Matthew F Gornet; Charles Branch; David Polly; John Peloza; James D Schwender; Leah Carreon Journal: Spine J Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.166
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
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
Authors: Thiago S Montenegro; Christopher Elia; Kevin Hines; Zorica Buser; Jefferson Wilson; Zoher Ghogawala; Shekar N Kurpad; Daniel M Sciubba; James S Harrop Journal: Neurospine Date: 2021-06-30
Authors: A Mechteld Lehr; F Cumhur Oner; Diyar Delawi; Rebecca K Stellato; Eric A Hoebink; Diederik H R Kempen; Job L C van Susante; René M Castelein; Moyo C Kruyt Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 3.241