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

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.

Download Full-text

Transforaminal and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Llumbar Degenerative Diseases, which one is better: A meta-analysis Through a Ggrade Analysis of Evidence

10.21203/rs.3.rs-910433/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

aixian tian ◽

xinlong ma ◽

jianxiong Ma

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Operation Time ◽

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Fusion Rate ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract BackgroundTo explore the efficacy and safety between posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.MethodsWe searched the literature in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The index words were posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF, lumbar interbody fusion, spinal fusion, degenerative disc disease and lumbar degenerative diseases. Primary outcomes were fusion rate and complications. Secondary outcomes were visual analog scale (ΔVAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ΔODI), total blood loss, operation time and length of hospital stay. Review Manager 5.3 and Stata13.1 was used for the analysis of forest plots, heterogeneity, sensitivity and publication bias.Results17 studies were included (N=1562; PLIF, n=835; TLIF, n=727). The pooled data showed PLIF had a higher complications (P= 0.000), especially in nerve injury (p = 0.003) and dural tear (p = 0.005). PLIF required longer operation time (p = 0.004), more blood loss (p = 0.000) and hospital stays (p = 0.006). Surprisingly subgroup analysis showed there was significant difference in complications in patients under 55 (p = 0.000) and Asian countries (p = 0.000). No statistical difference was found between the two groups with regard to fusion rate (p = 0.593),ΔVAS (p = 0.364) andΔODI (p = 0.237).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed there were no significant difference in fusion rate, ΔVAS and ΔODI. However TLIF could reduce complications, especially nerve injury and dural tear. Besides, TLIF was associated with statistically significant less blood loss, shorter operation time and shorter length of hospital stay.

Download Full-text