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.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822097914
Author(s):  
Lei Zhu ◽  
Jun-Wu Wang ◽  
Liang Zhang ◽  
Xin-Min Feng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: To evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes, and perioperative complications of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of related studies reporting outcomes of OLIF for ASD. The clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The radiographic parameters were evaluated by sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), Cobb angle and fusion rate. A random effects model and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were performed to investigate the results. Results: A total of 16 studies involving 519 patients were included in the present study. The mean difference of VAS-back score, VAS-leg score and ODI score before and after surgery was 5.1, 5.0 and 32.3 respectively. The mean correction of LL was 20.6°, with an average of 6.9° per level and the mean correction of Cobb was 16.4°, with an average of 4.7° per level. The mean correction of SVA, PT, SS, TK and PI-LL was 59.3 mm, 11.7°, 6.9°, 9.4° and 20.6° respectively. The mean fusion rate was 94.1%. The incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications was 4.9% and 29.6% respectively. Conclusions: OLIF is an effective and safe surgery method in the treatment of mild or moderate ASD and it has advantages in less intraoperative blood loss and lower perioperative complications.

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.

scholarly journals Is Routine Preoperative Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Prior to Bariatric Surgery Mandatory? Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 10,685 Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 3073-3083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walid El Ansari ◽  
Ayman El-Menyar ◽  
Brijesh Sathian ◽  
Hassan Al-Thani ◽  
Mohammed Al-Kuwari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Surgical Approach ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Background This systematic review and meta-analysis searched, retrieved and synthesized the evidence as to whether preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (p-EGD) should be routine before bariatric surgery (BS). Methods Databases searched for retrospective, prospective, and randomized (RCT) or quasi-RCT studies (01 January 2000–30 April 2019) of outcomes of routine p-EGD before BS. STROBE checklist assessed the quality of the studies. P-EGD findings were categorized: Group 0 (no abnormal findings); Group 1 (abnormal findings that do not necessitate changing the surgical approach or postponing surgery); Group 2 (abnormal findings that change the surgical approach or postpone surgery); and Group 3 (findings that signify absolute contraindications to surgery). We assessed data heterogeneity and publication bias. Random effect model was used. Results Twenty-five eligible studies were included (10,685 patients). Studies were heterogeneous, and there was publication bias. Group 0 comprised 5424 patients (56%, 95% CI: 45–67%); Group 1, 2064 patients (26%, 95% CI: 23–50%); Group 2, 1351 patients (16%, 95% CI: 11–21%); and Group 3 included 31 patients (0.4%, 95% CI: 0–1%). Conclusion For 82% of patients, routine p-EGD did not change surgical plan/ postpone surgery. For 16% of patients, p-EGD findings necessitated changing the surgical approach/ postponing surgery, but the proportion of postponements due to medical treatment of H Pylori as opposed to “necessary” substantial change in surgical approach is unclear. For 0.4% patients, p-EGD findings signified absolute contraindication to surgery. These findings invite a revisit to whether p-EGD should be routine before BS, and whether it is judicious to expose many obese patients to an invasive procedure that has potential risk and insufficient evidence of effectiveness. Further justification is required.

Alloplastic or Autologous? Bone Chips versus PEEK Cage for Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Koehler ◽  
Christopher Held ◽  
Christian Stetter ◽  
Thomas Westermaier
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Peek Cage ◽  
Cheap Alternative ◽  
Autologous Bone ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Introduction This study was conducted to compare bone-filled intervertebral cages with autologous bone chips for instrumented lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods Surgery consisted of posterior instrumentation and decompression, diskectomy, and intervertebral fusion using a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage surrounded and filled with spongious bone chips (group 1, n = 57) or spongious bone chips alone (group 2, n = 37). The choice of method was left to the discretion of the surgeon. Postoperative results were prospectively evaluated using a standardized protocol. Radiological assessment included fusion rates and vertebral height, while clinical assessment included the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results In group 1, a mean of 1.38 ± 0.64 segments were fused. In group 2, a mean of 1.58 ± 0.65 segments were fused. In both groups, the VAS for back pain and leg pain and the ODI improved without significant differences between the two groups. Osseous fusion was documented by computerized tomography in 73% in group 1 and 89% in group 2 after a mean of 18 months. The loss of height was 2.8 ± 4.0% in group 1 and 2.4 ± 5.2% in group 2. Conclusion Regardless of whether a PEEK cage filled with spongious bone chips or spongious bone chips alone were used for lumbar interbody fusion, clinical parameters improved significantly after surgery. There were no significant differences in the rate of bony fusion and loss of height between the two groups. The results of this nonrandomized cohort study indicate that the implantation of autologous spongious bone chips harvested during the decompression procedure is a useful and cheap alternative to an intervertebral cage in patients with degenerative pseudospondylolisthesis.

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 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 &lt; 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document