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.

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.

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 Comparison of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHEN Tai-bang ◽  
HE Xiao-qing ◽  
Liang Jing-long
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Disease

Abstract Aim: Both oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are frequently used to treat degenerative lumbar disease. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the radiologic and clinical outcomes between these two methods.Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and MEDLINE, were searched to identify relevant studies that compared OLIF and TLIF up to May 2020. The radiographic outcomes comprised of the disc height (DH), lumbar lordotic angle (LLA), disc angle (DA), fusion rate (FR), and foraminal height (FH). The secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, operation time, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data pooling and a meta-analysis with the random effects model were performed to evaluate the major results and conclusions. Results: A total of nine studies that involved 593 patients (271 patients in the OLIF group and 322 in the TLIF group) were included in the meta-analysis. Similar changes, in terms of disc height and fusion rate of >80%, were observed between the two groups. In comparing OLIF to TLIF, the OLIF group had less estimated blood loss, and a shorter operative time and hospital stay, with statistical difference. However, there was no significant difference in VAS and ODI between OLIF and TLIF.The meta-analysis suggested that TLIF is associated with better postoperative LLA, FH and DA, when compared to OLIF. However, these were not statistically significant (P>005).Conclusion: These results demonstrate that both OLIF and TLIF are similar in terms of the restoration of disc height and intervertebral fusion rate in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. OLIF was superior to TLIF in terms of operation time, hospital stay and estimated blood loss. However, there was no advantage in restoring the sagittal balance and correcting the lordosis.

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral instrumented fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disorders

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-178
Author(s):  
Sanjay Yadav ◽  
Saurabh Singh ◽  
Raj Kumar Arya ◽  
Alok Kumar ◽  
Ishan Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Spine Disorders

Objectives: Spinal fusion is an effective treatment for degenerative lumbar spine; however, conflicting results exist regarding the best procedure. This study compares the clinical and radiological outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) in patients of degenerative lumbar spine disorders. Methods: Of the total 37 patients, 16 patients were operated with TLIF and 21 were operated with instrumented PLF with bone grafting. Duration of the study was from June 2017 to June 2019. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Inclusion criteria were (1) age of patient ranging from 18 years to 70 years, (2) involvement of single level, (3) diagnosis of degenerative spine disease, and (4) minimum follow-up of 1 year. Radiographic parameters such as slippage of vertebrae, anterior and posterior disc heights, local disc lordosis, T12–S1 angle were measured, and fusion were assessed; comparison between preoperative and postoperative parameters was also done. Clinical outcome score was obtained using visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software. Results: No significant difference was found in ODI and VAS between TLIF and PLF. Restoration of disc height and improvement of local disc lordosis was better in the TLIF group than in the PLF group. The fusion rate was 87.5% in the TLIF group and 81% in the instrumented PLF group. Amount of blood loss was slightly higher in the TLIF group (319.69 ± 53.8 mL) than in the instrumented PLF group (261.19 ± 34.9 mL). Operating time was also slightly higher in TLIF (133 ± 6.02 min) than in instrumented PLF (90.71 ± 6.3 min). Conclusion: TLIF is superior to instrumented PLF in terms of restoration of anterior and posterior disc heights and improvement in local disc lordosis and higher fusion rate, however it requires greater surgical expertise and more experience. Because of anterior cage support, early weight-bearing mobilization can be allowed in the TLIF group compared to the PLF group. Surgical time and blood loss were slightly higher in cases of TLIF than instrumented PLF.

scholarly journals Modification of Magerl’s technique for the placement of translaminar facet screws in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical note and comparative outcome analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daoliang Xu ◽  
Haimin Jin ◽  
Jiaoxiang Chen ◽  
Xiangyang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Spinal Canal ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Modified Technique ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background To describe and illustrate a safe and effective technique for the placement of translaminar facet screws (TLFS) in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods Forty-two patients with single-level lumbar diseases were divided into two groups randomly. 21 patients were treated by traditional TLIF using bilateral pedicle screws fixation (BPS) while the other patients underwent insertion of a unilateral pedicle screw (UPS)and contralateral TLFS using our modified technique. In this technique, a small unicortical “hole” was formed adjacent to the contralateral facet joint to ensure that insertion of the screw could be directly visualized through the hole to prevent violation of the spinal canal. The ODI, JOA, VAPS questionnaire, the mean operation time, mean operative blood loss, length of stay and postoperative complications were collected for analysis. Results There is no significant difference between the BPS and UPS + TLFS group in the preoperative and postoperative ODI, JOA or VAPS at each follow- up visit, while the UPS + TLFS group using our modified technique significantly reduced the mean operation time, the mean estimated blood loss and the length of stay. These results demonstrated this modified technique to be safe and effective in TLIF. Conclusions In contrast to conventional TLIF, our modified technique for placing TLFS in TLIF can reduce soft tissue injuries, reduce the operation risk of violation of the spinal canal and the expenses, minimize radiation exposure, and shorten the length of the operation without a concurrent reduction in clinical efficacy.

scholarly journals Comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative spondylosis and disc disease in a tertiary care hospital in Pimpri

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 730
Author(s):  
Harsh Sanjay Kumar ◽  
Ajit Swamy
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Surgical Complications ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Significant Difference

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Spinal fusion in the form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are the two common surgical modalities for degenerative spondylosis and disc disease. The objective of the study to compare blood loss, surgical timing, post-operative medical and surgical complications in patients treated by either modality.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> This was to compare prospective study of 30 patients equally divided between two modalities operated for TLIF or PLIF after conservative treatment failure.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> There is a statistically significant difference between the blood loss, surgical time and improvement in ODI score in two groups while percentage of post-surgical complications are higher in PLIF group compared to TLIF.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> TLIF is associated with less post-operative surgical complications than TLIF which can be attributed to unilateral exposure of intervertebral disc space and requires lesser operative time and produces less blood loss.</p>

scholarly journals Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Maximal Muscle Sparing—A Prospective Comparative Study with the Traditional Open Technique

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Marengo ◽  
Marco Ajello ◽  
Michele Federico Pecoraro ◽  
Giulia Pilloni ◽  
Giovanni Vercelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
One Year ◽  
Muscular Damage

Introduction. A prospective comparative study between classical posterior interbody fusion with peduncular screws and the new technique with divergent cortical screws was conducted. Material and Methods. Only patients with monosegmental degenerative disease were recruited into this study. We analyzed a cohort of 40 patients treated from January 2015 to March 2016 divided into 2 groups (20 patients went to traditional open surgery and 20 patients under mini-invasive strategy). Primary endpoints of this study are fusion rate and muscular damage; secondary endpoints analyzed were three different clinical scores (ODI, VAS, and EQ) and the morbidity rate of both techniques. Results. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between the two techniques. In addition, a significant difference in muscular damage was found according to the MRI evaluation. Clinical outcomes, based on pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index status, and Euroquality-5D score, were found to be also statistically different, even one year after surgery. This study also demonstrated a correlation between patients’ muscular damage and their clinical outcome. Conclusions. Cortical bone trajectory screws would provide similar outcomes compared to pedicle screws in posterior lumbar interbody fusion at one year after surgery, and this technique represents a reasonable alternative to pedicle screws.

Comparison between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a retrospective clinical study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
chaojun Xu ◽  
Yingjie HAO ◽  
Lei YU ◽  
Guangduo ZHU ◽  
Zhinan REN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cobb Angle ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Vertical Axis ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Abstract Backgroud Few studies compared radiographic and clinical outcomes between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Methods This study retrospectively analyzed the case data of 40 patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis in our hospital from July 2016 to October 2018. Among which,19 cases underwent oblique lumbar Interbody fusion(OLIF group) and 21 cases underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF group). The duration of the operation, volume of intraoperative hemorrhage, incision length, bed rest time, length of hospital stay, and complications were recorded for all patients. The clinical effects of 40 patients were evaluated by VAS for back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and The radiographic parameters were evaluated using the lumbar scoliosis Cobb angle, sagittal vertical axis(SVA), coronal vertical axis(CVA), lumbar lordosis(LL), pelvic tilt(PT), sacral slope(SS), and Disc height(DH). Results The duration of the operation, the volume of intraoperative hemorrhage, incision length, bed rest time, length of hospital stay of the OLIF group were shorter than the PLIF group( P ＜ 0.05 ). The VAS scores for back pain, the ODI of the two groups were significantly decreased, which compared with the preoperative( P ＜ 0.05 )，which in OLIF group was significantly more decreased than in PLIF( P ＜ 0.05 ) at 7 days and 3 months postoperatively, but at the last follow-up there were no significant difference between the two groups( P ＞ 0.05 ); The lumbar scoliosis Cobb angle, SVA, CVA, PT, LL, SS were significantly improved postoperatively( P ＜ 0.05 ). The OLIF group showed higher DH, smaller Cobb angle, and greater LL than the PLIF group at any time point( P ＜ 0.05 ). but there were no significant difference in SVA, CVA, PT and SS between the two groups at any follow-up points( P ＞ 0.05 ). The overall complication rate was slightly higher in the PLIF group（47.62%）than in the OLIF group（26.32%）without significant difference(x 2 =1.931, P =0.165). But the incidence of major complications in the PLIF group was significantly higher than that in the OLIF group (Fisher, P =0.026). Conclusion OLIF provides an alternative minimally invasive treatment for DLS, which compared with PLIF. It has the characteristics of a small incision, rapid recovery, fewer complications related to the surgical approach, and satisfactory orthopedics. Keywords : Minimally invasive, Oblique lumbar interbody fusion, Degenerative adult lumbar scoliosis , Posterior lumbar interbody fusion

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Three-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoxin Fan ◽  
Xinbo Wu ◽  
Shunzhi Yu ◽  
Qi Sun ◽  
Xiaofei Guan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

The aim of this study was to directly compare the clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in three-level lumbar spinal stenosis. This retrospective study involved a total of 60 patients with three-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent MIS-TLIF or PLIF from January 2010 to February 2012. Back and leg visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scale were used to assess the pain, disability, and health status before surgery and postoperatively. In addition, the operating time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were also recorded. There were no significant differences in back VAS, leg VAS, ODI, SF-36, fusion condition, and complications at 12-month follow-up between the two groups (P>0.05). However, significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stay were observed in MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). Moreover, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had significantly lower back VAS than those in PLIF group at 6-month follow-up (P<0.05). Compared with PLIF, MIS-TLIF might be a prior option because of noninferior efficacy as well as merits of less blood loss and quicker recovery in treating three-level lumbar spinal stenosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document