Lumbar interbody fusion using oblique (OLIF) and lateral (LLIF) approaches for degenerative spine disorders: a meta-analysis of the comparative studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Ricciardi ◽  
Amedeo Piazza ◽  
Mattia Capobianco ◽  
Giuseppe Maria Della Pepa ◽  
Massimo Miscusi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spine ◽  
Spine Disorders

scholarly journals Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110164
Author(s):  
Elsayed Said ◽  
Mohamed E. Abdel-Wanis ◽  
Mohamed Ameen ◽  
Ali A. Sayed ◽  
Khaled H. Mosallam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: Arthrodesis has been a valid treatment option for spinal diseases, including spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterolateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion are amongst the most used fusion techniques. Previous reports comparing both methods have been contradictory. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish substantial evidence on which fusion method would achieve better outcomes. Methods: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes of interest between posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We extracted data on clinical outcome, complication rate, revision rate, fusion rate, operation time, and blood loss. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We retrieved 8 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, with a total of 616 patients (308 PLF, 308 PLIF). The results of our analysis revealed that patients who underwent PLIF had significantly higher fusion rates. No statistically significant difference was identified in terms of clinical outcomes, complication rates, revision rates, operation time or blood loss. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comparison between PLF and PLIF based on RCTs. Although PLIF had higher fusion rates, both fusion methods achieve similar clinical outcomes with equal complication rate, revision rate, operation time and blood loss at 1-year minimum follow-up.

Is L5/S1 interbody fusion necessary in long-segment surgery for adult degenerative scoliosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbosacral Junction ◽  
Pelvic Fixation ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

OBJECTIVE There is no consensus regarding the best surgical strategy at the lumbosacral junction (LSJ) in long constructs for adult spinal deformity (ASD). The use of interbody fusion (IF) has been advocated to increase fusion rates, with additional pelvic fixation (PF) typically recommended. The actual benefit of IF even when extending to the pelvis, however, has not been vigorously analyzed. The goal of this work was to better understand the role of IF, specifically with respect to arthrodesis, when extending long constructs to the ilium. METHODS A systematic review of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed to identify the relevant studies in English, addressing the management of LSJ in long constructs (defined as ≥ 5 levels) in ASD. The search terms used were as follows: “Lumbosacral Junction,” “Long Constructs,” “Long Fusion to the Sacrum,” “Sacropelvic Fixation,” “Interbody Fusion,” and “Iliac Screw.” The authors excluded technical notes, case reports, literature reviews, and cadaveric studies; pediatric populations; pathologies different from ASD; studies not using conventional techniques; and studies focused only on alignment of different levels. RESULTS The PRISMA protocol was used. The authors found 12 retrospective clinical studies with a total of 1216 patients who were sorted into 3 different categories: group 1, using PF or not (n = 6); group 2, using PF with or without IF (n = 5); and group 3, from 1 study comparing anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Five studies in group 1 and 4 in group 2 had pseudarthrosis rate as primary outcome and were selected for a quantitative analysis. Forest plots were used to display the risk ratio, and funnel plots were used to look at the risk of publication bias. The summary risk ratios were 0.36 (0.23–0.57, p < 0.001) and 1.03 (0.54–1.96, p = 0.94) for the PF and IF, respectively; there is a protective effect of overall pseudarthrosis for using PF in long constructs for ASD surgeries, but not for using IF. CONCLUSIONS The long-held contention that L5/S1 IF is always advantageous in long-construct deformity surgery is not supported by the current literature. Based on the findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis, PF with or without additional L5/S1 interbody grafting demonstrates similar overall construct pseudarthrosis rates. The added risk and costs associated with IF, therefore, should be more closely considered on a case-by-case basis.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Percutaneous Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 441-452
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Disease

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) has been increasingly used to treat degenerative lumbar disease in recent years. However, there are still controversies about whether PE-TLIF is superior to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes and complications of PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in treating degenerative lumbar disease. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of online databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify related studies reporting the outcomes and complications of PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. The clinical outcomes were assessed by the Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index. In addition, the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to ambulation, length of hospital stay, fusion rate, and surgery-related complications were summarized. Forest plots were constructed to investigate the results. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies involving 1,475 patients were included in this meta-analysis. PE-TLIF significantly reduced operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to ambulation, and length of hospital stay compared to MIS-TLIF. Moreover, PE-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF in the early postoperative relief of back pain. However, there were no significant differences in medium to long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rate, and incidence of complications between PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF. LIMITATIONS: The current evidence is heterogeneous and most studies included in this meta-analysis are nonrandomized controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis indicates that medium to long-term clinical outcomes and complication rates of PE-TLIF were similar to MIS-TLIF for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. However, PE-TLIF shows advantages in less surgical trauma, faster recovery, and early postoperative relief of back pain. KEY WORDS: Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, degenerative lumbar disease, chronic pain, systematic review, meta-analysis

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

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822093802
Author(s):  
Kuan-Yu Chi ◽  
Shih-Hao Cheng ◽  
Yu-Kai Kuo ◽  
En-Yuan Lin ◽  
Yi-No Kang
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Degenerative Disc Disease ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Event Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Degenerative Disc

Study Design: A network meta-analysis. Objectives: Lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) is an important issue in aging population, for which lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a feasible management in cases refractory to conservative therapy. There are various techniques available to perform LIF, including posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and anterior (ALIF) approaches. However, the comparative safety profile of these procedures remains controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate comparative adverse events of the LIF procedures in patients with LDDD. Methods: We searched 5 databases for relevant prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials. After quality assessments, we extracted neural, spinal, vascular, and wound events for conducting contrast-based network meta-analysis. Results were reported in risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). Results: We identified 14 studies involving 921 participants with LDDD. Pooled result showed that open PLIF (OPLIF) leads to significantly higher overall adverse event rate than does open TLIF (OTLIF; RR = 3.43, 95% CI = 1.21-9.73). OTLIF confers the highest SUCRA in neural (78.7) and spinal (80.8) event rates. Minimally invasive TLIF has the highest SUCRA in vascular event (84.2), and minimally invasive PLIF has the highest SUCRA in wound event (88.1). No inconsistency or publication bias was detected in the results. Conclusions: Based on our results, perhaps OPLIF should be avoided in the management of LDDD due to the inferiority of overall complications. Specifically, TLIF seems to have the safest profile in terms of neural, spinal, and vascular events. Nevertheless, shared decision making is still mandatory when choosing the proper LIF procedure for patients with LDDD in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Mimickers in Spine: Migrated Cages Causing Radiculopathy

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 21-27
Author(s):  
Saurav Narayan Nanda ◽  
Mantu Jain ◽  
Sudarsan Behera ◽  
Manisha Gaikwad
Keyword(s):  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Promising Result ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Neurological Complications ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Cage Migration ◽  
Spine Disorders

The procedure of interbody fusion has become an established treatment for many spine disorders. This arthrodesis can be achieved by hardware (fusion cage) through many approaches. Initially, posterior lumbar interbody fusion was popularized but had some serious neurological complications related to insertion as well as the migration of the cage. Gradually, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was introduced, which proved safer as it involves minimal cord handling, and also migration, if any, remains asymptomatic. We had two patients who were operated for interbody fusion using TLIF technique with subsequent posterior migration of the banana-shaped fusion cage 4–6 month after the index surgery. Both patients presented with radiculopathy mimicking a prolapsed intervertebral disc. These were evaluated and operated with the removal of the migrated cages and revision with bigger-size cages with adequate bone grafting. At the 1-year follow-up, both had remission of symptoms, and radiographs showed no subsequent migration. TLIF procedure is an established procedure to achieve arthrodesis in varying spine disorders with promising result. However, there are only a few reports describing cage migration after the procedure and these have been asymptomatic. Revision surgery is contemplated in the setting of neurological compression or instability. A bigger fusion cage in a compressive mode with adequate bone grafting is used to achieve arthrodesis. The principles of interbody fusion must be followed, and utmost precautions must be taken to prevent this unfortunate complication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document