scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy of anterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of orthopedic spondylolisthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Xiyan Xu ◽  
Xiuyang Li ◽  
Tao Yang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion

scholarly journals 1046 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approaches: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Feeley ◽  
I Feeley ◽  
K Clesham ◽  
J Butler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transperitoneal Approach ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Vessel Injury ◽  
Hospital Stays

Abstract Aim Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established alternative to posterior-based interbody fusion techniques, with approach variations, such as retroperitoneal; transperitoneal; open; and laparoscopic well described. Variable rates of complications for each approach have been enumerated in the literature. We aim to elucidate the comparative rates of complications across approach type. Method A systematic review of the search databases Pubmed; google scholar; and OVID Medline was made in November 2020 to identify studies related to complications associated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. PRISMA guidelines were utilised for this review. Studies eligible for inclusion were agreed by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was used to compare intra- and postoperative complications with ALIF for each approach. Results 4575 studies were identified, with 5728 patients across 31 studies included for review following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis demonstrated the transperitoneal approach resulted in higher rates of Retrograde Ejaculation (RE) (p < 0.001; CI = 0.05-0.21) and overall rates of complications (p = 0.05; CI = 0.00-0.23). Rates of RE were higher at the L5/S1 intervertebral level. Rates of vessel injury were not significantly higher in either approach method (p = 0.89; CI=-0.04-0.07). Laparoscopic approaches resulted in shorter inpatient stays (p = 0.01). Conclusions Despite the transperitoneal approach being comparatively underpowered, its use appears to result in a significantly higher rate of intra- and postoperative complications, although confounders including use of BMP and spinal level should be considered. Laparoscopic approaches resulted in shorter hospital stays, however its steep learning curve and longer operative time have deterred surgeons from its widespread adaptation.

scholarly journals Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) as an option for recurrent disc herniations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 587-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Phan ◽  
Alan Lackey ◽  
Nicholas Chang ◽  
Yam-Ting Ho ◽  
David Abi-Hanna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Herniations

scholarly journals Is Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion a Safe and Efficacious Treatment for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis of L5-S1?

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 587-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke L. Viglione ◽  
Uphar Chamoli ◽  
Ashish D. Diwan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Isthmic Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Insufficient Evidence ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Online Databases

Study Design: A systematic review. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (sa-ALIF) for the treatment of symptomatic isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1 by assessing the level of available clinical and radiographic evidence. Methods: A systematic review utilizing Medline, Embase, and Scopus online databases was undertaken. Clinical, radiographic, and adverse outcome data were extracted for the relevant isthmic spondylolisthesis cases with the intention of undertaking a meta-analysis. Results: The database search between January 1980 and December 2015 yielded 23 articles that concerned sa-ALIF for isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1. Only in 9 of the 23 articles data could be extracted specific to sa-ALIF for isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1. There was considerable inconsistency in the standards for reporting outcomes of the surgery due to which meta-analysis could not be undertaken, and hence each article was reviewed. Conclusions: There was insufficient evidence to support the safety and efficacy of sa-ALIF for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1. Although sa-ALIF is widely documented in the literature, there was insufficient evidence to support its use in treating this specific pathology. The unique pathological and anatomical situation that isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1 presents must be recognized and its treatment with sa-ALIF should be well thought out.

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document