Literature DB >> 34296029

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

Ziev B Moses1, Sharmeen Razvi1, Seok Yoon Oh1, Andrew Platt1, Kevin C Keegan1, Fadi Hamati1, Christopher Witiw1, Brian T David1, Ricardo B V Fontes1, Harel Deutsch1, John E O'Toole1, Richard G Fessler1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) remains a significant cause of morbidity in adulthood. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are surgical techniques developed to treat this condition. With limited studies on intermediate term outcomes in a single cohort, we compare radiographic and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing ALIF and TLIF.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 164 patients (111 TLIF; 53 ALIF) over a 60-month period. X-ray radiographs obtained pre-operatively, prior to discharge, and at one year were utilized for radiographic assessment. Segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis and HRQOL scores were measured preoperatively and at one-year timepoints.
RESULTS: Changes in lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis were significantly greater after ALIF (4.6° vs. -0.6°, P=0.05; 4.7° vs. -0.7°, P<0.05) at one year (mean time, 366±20 days). At one year or greater, there was a greater reduction in mean VAS-leg score in TLIF patients (3.4 vs. 0.6, P<0.05) and ODI score (16.2 vs. 5.4, P<0.05). Similar outcomes were seen for VAS-back, SF-12 Physical Health, and SRS-30 Function/Activity. SF-12 Mental Health scores were found to be lower in patients undergoing TLIF (-3.5 vs. 2.7, P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: ALIF demonstrated a superior method of increasing lumbar and segmental lordosis. TLIF was utilized more in patients with higher pre-operative VAS-leg pain scores and therefore, showed a greater magnitude of VAS-leg pain improvement. TLIF also demonstrated a greater improvement in ODI scores despite similar baseline scores, suggesting a possible enhanced functional outcome. 2021 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Spine; anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF); lumbar interbody fusion; minimally invasive spine surgery; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)

Year:  2021        PMID: 34296029      PMCID: PMC8261555          DOI: 10.21037/jss-20-673

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  27 in total

1.  Analysis of operative complications in a series of 471 anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedures.

Authors:  Rick C Sasso; Natalie M Best; Praveen V Mummaneni; Thomas M Reilly; Sajjad M Hussain
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Jin-Sung Kim; Byung-Uk Kang; Sang-Ho Lee; Byungjoo Jung; Young-Geun Choi; Sang Hyeop Jeon; Ho Yeon Lee
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2009-04

Review 3.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion--systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Ganesha K Thayaparan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  2015-05-12       Impact factor: 1.596

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

Authors:  Robert G Watkins; Robert Hanna; David Chang; Robert G Watkins
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2014-07

Review 5.  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

6.  2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group.

Authors:  P Fritzell; O Hägg; P Wessberg; A Nordwall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Complications related to instrumentation in spine surgery: a prospective analysis.

Authors:  Peter G Campbell; Sanjay Yadla; Jennifer Malone; Mitchell G Maltenfort; James S Harrop; Ashwini D Sharan; John K Ratliff
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.047

8.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Quality of Life for Patients With Low Back Pain.

Authors:  María J Díaz-Arribas; Mónica Fernández-Serrano; Ana Royuela; Francisco M Kovacs; Tomás Gallego-Izquierdo; Mabel Ramos-Sánchez; Rosa Llorca-Palomera; Pedro Pardo-Hervás; Oscar S Martín-Pariente
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  Assessing the Difference in Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Expandable Cage and Nonexpandable Cage Among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mohammed Ali Alvi; Shyam J Kurian; Waseem Wahood; Anshit Goyal; Benjamin D Elder; Mohamad Bydon
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2019-04-05       Impact factor: 2.104

10.  Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches.

Authors:  Chad D Cole; Todd D McCall; Meic H Schmidt; Andrew T Dailey
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2009-04-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.