scholarly journals Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Stand-Alone Oblique Lumber Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Run Peng Guo ◽  
Xian Da Gao ◽  
Pei Yu Du ◽  
Wen Yuan Ding ◽  
Lei Ma
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Incision Length ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Diseases

Abstract Background: This study evaluated the clinical and imaging results of oblique lumber interbody fusion (OLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases.Methods: The clinical data of 99 patients with degenerative lumbar diseases in the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January 2016 to January 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. 49 cases were dealt with by OLIF (stand-alone) (OLIF group) and 50 cases with PLIF (PLIF group). Clinical and imaging data were collected before surgery and at each follow-up visit. Clinical data included operation time, blood loss, incision length, length of hospital stay, visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI), Japanese orthopaedic association (JOA) scores and complications. imaging measurment included the height of segmental intervertebral space, lumbar lordotic angle, operative segmental lordotic angle and fusion rate. The relationship between clinical results and radiology was assessed by comparing the radiological results before and after operation.Results: 99 cases of interbody fusion were performed successfully, and all patients had clinical improvement. The follow-up time was 24-38 months. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length and hospital stay in OLIF group were significantly less than those in the PLIF group (p<0.05). The intervertebral disc height, lumbar lordotic angle and operative segmental lordotic angle in the two groups were significantly enhanced compared with those before operation, and the difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). All of them achieved satisfactory fusion effect. Complications were found in 5 cases in OLIF group and 13 cases in PLIF group.Conclusion: Both OLIF and PLIF are effective in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Compared with PLIF, OLIF has a lot advantages in early stage after operation, However, similar clinical outcomes were achieved in the two approaches at mid-term follow-up visit.

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.

Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level: clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 198-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Taneichi ◽  
Kota Suda ◽  
Tomomichi Kajino ◽  
Akira Matsumura ◽  
Hiroshi Moridaira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column Support ◽  
The Mean

Object There are no published reports of unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in which two Brantigan I/F cages were placed per level through a single portal to achieve bilateral anterior-column support. The authors describe such a surgical technique and evaluate the clinical outcomes of this procedure. Methods Data obtained in 86 (93.5%) of the first 92 consecutive patients who underwent the procedure were retrospectively reviewed; the minimum follow-up duration was 2 years. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring system. Disc height, disc angle, cage positioning in the axial plane, and fusion status were radiographically evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 33.8 months. The mean improvement in the JOA score was 77.2%. Fusion was successful in 93% of the cases. According to the Farfan method, the mean anterior and posterior disc heights increased from 20.2 and 16.9% preoperatively to 35.9 and 22.7% at follow up, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean disc angle increased from 4.8° preoperatively to 7.5° at last follow-up examination (p < 0.01). Two cages were correctly placed to achieve bilateral anterior-column support in greater than 85% of the cases. The following complications occurred: hardware migration in two patients and deep infection cured by intravenous antibiotic therapy in one patient. Conclusions Unilateral TLIF involving the placement of two Brantigan cages per level led to good clinical results. Two Brantigan cages were adequately placed via a single portal, and reliable bilateral anterior-column support was achieved. Although the less invasive unilateral approach was used, the outcomes were as good as those in many reported series of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in which the Brantigan cages were placed via the bilateral approach.

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

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.

Perioperative complications of primary posterior lumbar interbody fusion for nonisthmic spondylolisthesis: analysis of risk factors

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 403-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noboru Hosono ◽  
Masato Namekata ◽  
Takahiro Makino ◽  
Toshitada Miwa ◽  
Takashi Kaito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Neurological Complications ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Facet Joints ◽  
Surgeon Experience

Object Although posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is an excellent procedure to attain circumferential decompression, it is technically demanding and can lead to various surgical complications. The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with nonisthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent PLIF to reveal the incidence and risk factors for perioperative complications of PLIF. Methods A total of 240 patients underwent PLIF. The fusion level was at L4–5 in 220, L3–4 in 18, and L5–S1 in 2. The medial walls of the fusion segment's facet joints were resected, and the VSP Spine System was used for the pedicle screw instrumentation. The operations were performed by 7 surgeons, who were divided into 4 groups according to their level of experience with spinal surgery. Results The average operation time was 175 ± 49 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 746 ± 489 ml. A total of 90 patients (37.5%) experienced complications; 41 (17%) experienced transient neurological complications, and 18 (7.5%) experienced permanent neurological complications. The mean neurological score according to the Japanese Orthopaedic Association improved from 14.3 ± 3.8 to 24.7 ± 4.0 in the patients without complications and from 14.8 ± 3.6 to 24.0 ± 3.9 in the patients with complications. Multivariate analysis concerning the relationship between complications and risk factors (operation time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, and surgeon experience) revealed that operation time was the only significant risk factor for complications. Conclusions Perioperative complications of PLIF were more frequent in this homogeneous study group than in other studies of various implants. Total excision of the facet joints might preclude neurological complications.

scholarly journals Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Computer Navigation

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustin Miguel G. Morales ◽  
Jose Joefrey F. Arbatin Jr. ◽  
Eric Astelo O. Belarmino ◽  
Oliver Y. Ong ◽  
Hester Renel L. Palma
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbosacral Spine ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Objective. The main objective of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of computer minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (CNMIS TLIF). Methods. Blood loss, operating time, complications, and hospital stay were identified through chart review. Numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for pain were taken during recent follow-ups, and these were compared to the pre-operative scores. Three different examiners assessed the pre-operative lumbosacral spine radiographs. At a 2-years follow-up, the patients were evaluated with NRS and the radiographs reassessed by three other examiners. Results. Seventy-four patients with a mean age of 54 years underwent CNMIS TLIF. Average blood loss was 300 mL, operative time was 4.5 hours, and the average length of hospital stay was 8.5 days. A total of four complications were noted in our study. There was an improvement of mean local lordosis and regional lordosis. The paired-sample t-test showed that the anterior, middle, and posterior disc heights at the cage level were significantly increased compared to the pre-operative values. Conclusion. CNMIS TLIF is a safe and efficient method to achieve spinal fusion. There was a significant improvement in clinical outcomes in terms of pain relief. Radiologic parameters such as local lordosis, regional lordosis, and anterior, middle, and posterior disc heights showed significant improvements at 2-years follow-up.

scholarly journals Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes following Combined Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Instrumentation for the Treatment of Degenerative Spine Deformity: A Preliminary Retrospective Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Kai Wang ◽  
Can Zhang ◽  
Cheng Cheng ◽  
Fengzeng Jian ◽  
Hao Wu
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Cobb Angle ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Spine Deformity ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spine ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Objective. The authors recently used a combination of minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral fixation for the treatment of degenerative spine deformity. The early results were promising. Radiographic and clinical results as well as complications were retrospectively assessed in the current study. Methods. Eleven patients with degenerative spine deformity underwent combined OLIF and lateral instrumentation without real-time electromyography (EMG) monitoring. Radiographic measurements including coronal Cobb angle, central sacral vertebral line (CSVL), lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertebral axis (SVA), pelvic tilt (PT), and LL-PI (pelvic incidence) mismatch were taken preoperatively and at last follow-up postoperatively in all patients. Concurrently, the visual analog score (VAS) for back pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score were used to assess clinical outcomes. The fusion rate of OLIF cage, total blood loss, operation time, hospital stay, and complications were also evaluated. Results. At last follow-up, all patients who underwent combined OLIF and lateral instrumentation achieved statistically significant improvement in coronal Cobb angle (from 15.3±4.7° to 5.9±3.1°, p < 0.01), LL (from 34.3±9.0° to 48.2±8.5°, p < 0.01), PT (from 24.2±9.6° to 16.2±6.0°, p < 0.01), LL-PI mismatch (from 15.4±8.7° to 7.0±3.7°, p < 0.01), CSVL (from 2.1±2.2cm to 0.7±0.9cm, p = 0.01), and SVA (from 7.0±3.9cm to 2.9±1.8cm, p < 0.01). VAS for back pain (from 6.9±1.4 to 2.0±0.9, p < 0.05) and ODI (from 39.5±3.1 to 21.9±3.6, p < 0.01) improved significantly after surgery. Conclusions. A combination of OLIF and lateral instrumentation is an effective and safety means of achieving correction of both coronal and sagittal deformity, resulting in improvement of quality of life in patients with degenerative spine deformity. It is a promising way to treat patients with moderate degenerative spine deformity.

scholarly journals Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Consecutive Case Series with Mean 2-Year Follow-Up

2020 ◽  
Vol 2;23 (4;2) ◽  
pp. 165-174
Author(s):  
Yazeng Huang
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Diseases ◽  
Sf 36

Background: Conventional open surgical procedures may cause massive dissections of the spine, higher perioperative complications, prolonged hospitalization, protracted rehabilitation programs and recovery. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) is an evolving treatment option. Objectives: To present the detailed procedure and preliminary clinical and radiologic results of PELIF for degenerative lumbar diseases. Study Design: A retrospective cohort study. Setting: A university affiliated tertiary hospital. Methods: The medical records of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases who underwent PELIF between January 2016 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical level, surgical time, blood loss, hospital length of stay, and perioperative complications were discussed. Patients were also evaluated for pain by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional assessment by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), including Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) preoperatively, postoperatively, and during the follow-up period. Results: Thirty-nine consecutive patients (25 men and 14 women) with a mean age of 59.0 years (range, 39-77 years) were enrolled. The average surgical time was 213.8 ± 31.7 minutes (range, 185-324 minutes). Mean estimated blood loss was 25.0 ± 12.6 mL (range, 15-50 mL). At the latest follow-up visit, the VAS scores for back pain, leg pain, ODI, and SF-36 (MCS/PCS) scores improved 89.5%, 95.0%, 71.2%, and 37.5%/58%, respectively. Reoperations were performed in one patient for residual disc mass and one for misplacement of pedicle screw. Fusion was achieved in all patients. Limitations: The presented results are preliminary and should be interpreted taking the limitations into account, including nonrandomized design, relatively small sample size, and less intensive follow-up period. Conclusions: The presented PELIF technique seems to be a promising surgical alternative for the treatment of patients with specific degenerative lumbar diseases. Randomized studies with larger sample size and long-term follow-up duration are needed to validate the superiorities of this versatile surgery. Key words: Endoscopic, minimally invasive spine surgery, lumbar interbody fusion, disc herniation, spondylolisthesis

scholarly journals The effect of two surgical approach Lordosis correction in degenerative lumbar diseases: minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus transforminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renjie Li ◽  
Xiaofeng Shao ◽  
Weimin Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Bed Rest ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Vas Scores ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Abstract Background: The present study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and radiographic results of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed and compared 28 patients who underwent OLIF (OLIF group) and 35 who underwent TLIF (TLIF group). The operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage, bed rest duration, and length of hospital stay were compared between the 2 groups. Clinical results were evaluated with the ODI and VAS for back and leg pain. Radiological results were evaluated with disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), fused segment lordosis (FSL) and lumbar lordosis (LL).Results: The OLIF group had less intraoperative blood loss, shorter operative time, bed rest time, and hospital stay than TLIF group (P<0.05). The OLIF group had lower VAS scores for back pain and lower VAS scores for leg pain after surgery compared with before surgery (P<0.05), The OLIF group had lower ODI after surgery compared with before surgery (P<0.05). The was no significant difference in decrease value in VAS and ODI after surgery between the two groups (P>0.05). No significant differences were found in DH, FH and LL between the 2 groups preoperatively (P>0.05). The OLIF group showed higher DH and FH than the TLIF group at all time points (P<0.05). No significant differences were found in FSH between the 2 groups at any time point.Conclusions: OLIF has similar good long-term clinical outcomes of TLIF with the additional benefits of less initial postoperative pain, early rehabilitation, shorter hospitalization, and fewer complications.

Effect of segmental lordosis on the clinical outcomes of 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 670-675
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Takahashi ◽  
Shinya Okuda ◽  
Yukitaka Nagamoto ◽  
Tomiya Matsumoto ◽  
Tsuyoshi Sugiura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Recovery Rate ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spinopelvic Parameters ◽  
Outcome Group ◽  
Segmental Lordosis ◽  
The Relationship

OBJECTIVEAlthough the importance of spinopelvic sagittal balance and its implications for clinical outcomes of spinal fusion surgery have been described, to the authors’ knowledge there have been no reports of the relationship between spinopelvic alignment and clinical outcomes for 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The purpose of this study was to elucidate the relationship between clinical outcomes and spinopelvic sagittal parameters after 2-level PLIF for 2-level degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).METHODSThis study was limited to patients who were treated with 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS at L3–4-5. Between 2005 and 2014, 33 patients who could be followed up for at least 2 years were included in this study. The average age at the time of surgery was 72 years, and the average follow-up period was 5.6 years. Based on clinical assessments, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and recovery rate were evaluated. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the recovery rate: the good outcome group (G group; n = 19), with recovery rate ≥ 50%, and the poor outcome group (P group; n = 14) with recovery rate < 50%. Spinopelvic parameters were measured using lateral standing radiographs of the whole spine as follows: sagittal vertical axis (SVA), thoracic kyphosis (TK), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis (LL), and segmental lordosis (SL) at L3–4-5. The clinical outcomes and radiological parameters were assessed preoperatively and at the final follow-up. Radiological parameters were compared between the 2 groups.RESULTSThe mean JOA score improved significantly in all patients from 10.8 points before surgery to 19.6 points at the latest follow-up (mean recovery rate 47.7%). For radiological outcomes, no difference was observed from preoperative assessment to final follow-up in any of the spinopelvic parameters except SVA. Although no significant difference between the 2 groups was detected in any of the spinopelvic parameters, there were significant differences in the change in SL and LL (ΔSL 3.7° vs −2.1° and ΔLL 1.2° vs −5.6° for the G and P groups, respectively). In addition, the number of patients in the G group was significantly larger for the patients with ΔSL-plus than those with ΔSL-minus (p = 0.008).CONCLUSIONSThe clinical outcomes of 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS limited at L3–4-5 appeared to be satisfactory. The results indicate that acquisition of increased SL in surgery might lead to better clinical outcomes.

scholarly journals Adjacent-segment disease after L3–4 posterior lumbar interbody fusion: does L3–4 fusion have cranial adjacent-segment degeneration similar to that after L4–5 fusion?

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-460
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Aono ◽  
Shota Takenaka ◽  
Hidekazu Tobimatsu ◽  
Yukitaka Nagamoto ◽  
Masayuki Furuya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Diseases ◽  
Caudal Segment

OBJECTIVEPosterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is a widely accepted procedure for degenerative lumbar diseases, and there have been many reports concerning adjacent-segment disease (ASD) after PLIF. In the reports of ASD in which the fusion level was limited to 1 segment, all reports describe ASD of the L3–4 segment after L4–5 PLIF. On the basis of these reports, it is thought that ASD mainly occurs at the cranial segment. However, no report has covered ASD after L3–4 PLIF. Therefore, the authors investigated ASD after L3–4 PLIF.METHODSIn conducting a retrospective case series analysis, the authors reviewed a surgical database providing details of all spine operations performed between 2006 and 2017 at a single institution. During that period, PLIF was performed to treat 632 consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. Of these patients, 71 were treated with L3–4 PLIF alone, and 67 who were monitored for at least 2 years (mean 5.8 years; follow-up rate 94%) after surgery were enrolled in this study. Radiological ASD (R-ASD), symptomatic ASD (S-ASD), and operative ASD (O-ASD) were evaluated. These types of ASD were defined as follows: R-ASD refers to radiological degeneration adjacent to the fusion segment as shown on plain radiographs; S-ASD is a symptomatic condition due to neurological deterioration at the adjacent-segment degeneration; and O-ASD refers to S-ASD requiring revision surgery.RESULTSAll patients had initial improvement of neurological symptoms after primary PLIF. R-ASD was observed in 32 (48%) of 67 patients. It occurred at the cranial segment in 12 patients and at the caudal segment in 24; R-ASD at both adjacent segments was observed in 4 patients. Thus, the occurrence of R-ASD was more significant in the caudal segment than in the cranial segment. S-ASD was observed in 10 patients (15%), occurring at the cranial segment in 3 patients and at the caudal segment in 7. O-ASD was observed in 6 patients (9%): at the cranial segment in 1 patient and at the caudal segment in 5. Thus, the rate of involvement of the caudal segment was 67% in R-ASD, 70% in S-ASD, and 83% in O-ASD.CONCLUSIONSThe incidences of R-ASD, S-ASD, and O-ASD were 48%, 15%, and 9%, respectively, after L3–4 PLIF for degenerative lumbar diseases. In contrast to ASD after L4–5 PLIF, ASD after L3–4 PLIF was more frequently observed at the caudal segment than at the cranial segment. In follow-up for patients with L3–4 PLIF, surgeons should pay attention to ASD in the caudal segment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document