Patient-reported Quality of Life Following Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Indirect Decompression Using Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Spine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (18) ◽  
pp. E1172-E1178
Author(s):  
Hiroaki Nakashima ◽  
Tokumi Kanemura ◽  
Kotaro Satake ◽  
Kenyu Ito ◽  
Satoshi Tanaka ◽  
...  
Spine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (19) ◽  
pp. 1502-1510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Makino ◽  
Takashi Kaito ◽  
Hiroyasu Fujiwara ◽  
Hirotsugu Honda ◽  
Yusuke Sakai ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 230949901982933
Author(s):  
Keng Meng Jeremy Goh ◽  
Ming Han Lincoln Liow ◽  
Sheng Xu ◽  
William Yeo ◽  
Zhixing Marcus Ling ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroaki Nakashima ◽  
Tokumi Kanemura ◽  
Kotaro Satake ◽  
Kenyu Ito ◽  
Yoshimoto Ishikawa ◽  
...  

Study Design: Retrospective comparative study.Purpose: We compared clinical and radiographical outcomes after lumbar decompression revision surgery for restenosis by lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).Overview of Literature: Indirect lumbar decompression with LLIF was used to treat degenerative lumbar diseases requiring neural decompression. However, only a few studies have focused on the effectiveness of this technique for restenosis after lumbar decompression.Methods: We retrospectively investigated 52 cases involving lumbar interbody fusions for restenosis with spondylolisthesis after lumbar decompressions; these cases consisted of 15 patients who underwent indirect decompression with LLIF and posterior fixation and 37 patients who underwent the same procedure with PLIF. We compared Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and perioperative complications between groups. The cross-sectional areas of the thecal sac on magnetic resonance imaging were measured before, immediately after, and 2 years after surgery. We conducted statistical analyses using unpaired t -test and Fisher’s exact tests, and a <i>p</i> -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: The operative time was significantly shorter in the LLIF group than in the PLIF group (115.3±33.6 min vs. 186.2±34.2 min, respectively; <i>p</i> <0.001). In addition, the intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LLIF group than in the PLIF group (58.2±32.7 mL vs. 303.2±140.1 mL, respectively; <i>p</i> <0.001). We found two cases of transient lateral thigh weakness (13.3%) in the LLIF group and five cases of incidental durotomy, one case of deep infection, and one case of neurological deterioration in the PLIF group—resulting in a higher complication incidence (18.9%), although it did not reach (<i>p</i> =0.63). The JOA scores improved significantly in both groups.Conclusions: Indirect decompression using LLIF provided acceptable clinical and radiographical outcomes in patients with restenosis with spondylolisthesis after lumbar decompression; no revision-surgery-specific complications were found. Our results suggest that LLIF is a safe and minimally invasive procedure for revision surgery.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chunlei Wang ◽  
Xianzhong Meng ◽  
Jiangnan Wu ◽  
Hengrui Chang ◽  
Chang Liu

Abstract Background: Scarce information exists on the relationship between lumbar lordosis (LL) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after lumbar surgery. The aim of this study was to derive a predictive equation for lordosis using pelvic incidence and to establish a simple lumbar lordosis prediction method to improve the quality of life after surgery.Methods: A number of 146 patients with lumbar surgery were included in the study. Spinopelvic parameters and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were measured at the final follow-up. At the 75th percentile cut-off value, patients with ODI were assigned to a good HRQOL group. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the correlation between parameters and ODI, and simple linear regression analysis was conducted to deduce the predictive equation for the recovery of reasonable LL by posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).Results: In the good HRQOL group, we included 108 patients with an ODI score less than 29 (75% cut-off value) at the last follow-up. All patients had had completed their posterior lumbar interbody fusion (L4-S1) by the same experienced surgeon. Multiple regression analysis revealed that LL (P < 0.001) was significantly associated with ODI as radiological parameters. The close relationship between PI and LL is highly evident from the value of the regression coefficient (r = 0.765, P < 0.001). Based on the correlation established between the above parameters, the following prediction equation for PI and LL was derived: LL = 0.59 × PI + 12 (r = 0.765, P < 0.001). Conclusions: This simple calculation method can provide a more effective and simple prediction of lumbar lordosis in the Chinese population. This approach can be used as a decision-making tool for restoring LL in lumbar correction surgery and plays an important role in improving the quality of life of patients after lumbar surgery.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17S-21S
Author(s):  
Oded Rabau ◽  
Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez ◽  
Mina Aziz ◽  
Alisson Teles ◽  
Susan Mengxiao Ge ◽  
...  

Degenerative lumbar spine disease (DLSD) is a heterogenous group of conditions that can significantly affect patients’ quality of life. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is one of the treatment modalities for DLSD that has been increasing in popularity over the past decade. The treatment of DLSD should be individualized based on patients’ symptoms and characteristics to maximize outcomes. Methods: Literature review, invited review. Results: In this article, we will (1) review the use of the LLIF technique in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease, (2) review the current concepts of LLIF, and (3) explore the evidence to date that will allow the reader to maximize the benefits of this technique. Conclusions: LLIF is an alternative for the treatment of degenerative pathologies of the lumbar spine via indirect decompression.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0245963
Author(s):  
Inge J. M. H. Caelers ◽  
Suzanne L. de Kunder ◽  
Kim Rijkers ◽  
Wouter L. W. van Hemert ◽  
Rob A. de Bie ◽  
...  

Introduction The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. Methods Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Results Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low. Conclusions This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results. Trial registration Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.


2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822095381
Author(s):  
Hiroki Ushirozako ◽  
Tomohiko Hasegawa ◽  
Shigeto Ebata ◽  
Tetsuro Ohba ◽  
Hiroki Oba ◽  
...  

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Nonunion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is associated with poor improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We aimed to investigate the influence of early osseous union after PLIF on HRQOL. Methods: We reviewed 138 patients with 1-level PLIF (mean age 67 years, follow-up period ≥1 year). Postoperative lumbar computed tomography was performed to assess screw loosening and intervertebral union. HRQOL was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire. Results: Thirty-nine patients (28%) showed complete union at 6 months postoperatively (early union group). Twenty-eight patients (20%) showed complete union at 6 to 12 months postoperatively (delayed union group), while 71 patients demonstrated noncomplete union. Effective improvement of lumbar spine dysfunction and psychological disorders was achieved in 19 (63.3%) and 17 (50.0%) patients in the early union group, in 9 (42.9%) and 14 (53.8%) patients in the delayed union group, and in 22 (34.9%) and 19 (29.2%) patients in the nonunion group, respectively ( P = .036 and P = .036, respectively). The nonunion group had a significantly higher proportion of cases with screw loosening at 6 and 12 months postoperatively than the complete union group ( P = .033 and P = .022). Conclusions: Lumbar spine dysfunction and psychological disorders improved in cases with early complete union compared to those with nonunion. Screw loosening occurred in cases with nonunion predominantly from 6 months postoperatively. Therefore, the achievement of early complete union might be helpful for better HRQOL and lower incidence of postoperative complications.


2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. E6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Campbell ◽  
Pierce D. Nunley ◽  
David Cavanaugh ◽  
Eubulus Kerr ◽  
Philip Andrew Utter ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVERecently, authors have called into question the utility and complication index of the lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedure at the L4–5 level. Furthermore, the need for direct decompression has also been debated. Here, the authors report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion, relying only on indirect decompression to treat patients with neurogenic claudication secondary to Grade 1 and 2 spondylolisthesis at the L4–5 level.METHODSThe authors conducted a retrospective evaluation of 18 consecutive patients with Grade 1 or 2 spondylolisthesis from a prospectively maintained database. All patients underwent a transpsoas approach, followed by posterior percutaneous instrumentation without decompression. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and SF-12 were administered during the clinical evaluations. Radiographic evaluation was also performed. The mean follow-up was 6.2 months.RESULTSFifteen patients with Grade 1 and 3 patients with Grade 2 spondylolisthesis were identified and underwent fusion at a total of 20 levels. The mean operative time was 165 minutes for the combined anterior and posterior phases of the operation. The estimated blood loss was 113 ml. The most common cage width in the anteroposterior dimension was 22 mm (78%). Anterior thigh dysesthesia was identified on detailed sensory evaluation in 6 of 18 patients (33%); all patients experienced resolution within 6 months postoperatively. No patient had lasting sensory loss or motor deficit. The average ODI score improved 26 points by the 6-month follow-up. At the 6-month follow-up, the SF-12 mean Physical and Mental Component Summary scores improved by 11.9% and 9.6%, respectively. No patient required additional decompression postoperatively.CONCLUSIONSThis study offers clinical results to establish lateral lumbar interbody fusion as an effective technique for the treatment of Grade 1 or 2 degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4–5. The use of this surgical approach provides a minimally invasive solution that offers excellent arthrodesis rates as well as favorable clinical and radiological outcomes, with low rates of postoperative complications. However, adhering to the techniques of transpsoas lateral surgery, such as minimal table break, an initial look-and-see approach to the psoas, clear identification of the plexus, minimal cranial caudal expansion of the retractor, mobilization of any traversing sensory nerves, and total psoas dilation times less than 20 minutes, ensures the lowest possible complication profile for both visceral and neural injuries even in the narrow safe zones when accessing the L4–5 disc space in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document