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 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 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 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.

Risk Factors for Poor Patient-Reported Quality of Life Outcomes After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Spine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (19) ◽  
pp. 1502-1510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Makino ◽  
Takashi Kaito ◽  
Hiroyasu Fujiwara ◽  
Hirotsugu Honda ◽  
Yusuke Sakai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Poor Patient ◽  
Quality Of Life Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Hidden blood loss and its possible risk factors in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanxing Zhou ◽  
Xin Fu ◽  
Ming Yang ◽  
Song Ke ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Linear Regression ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fibrinogen Level ◽  
Muscle Thickness ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Hidden Blood Loss ◽  
Independent Risk Factors

Abstract Background With respect to spinal surgeries, elucidating absolute and relative amount of hidden blood loss (HBL) is of great importance in order to avoid aforementioned potential complications. To evaluate HBL and its possible risk factors among patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods Between June 2018 and March 2019, 137 consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative disease, who underwent operation with MIS-TLIF technique, were enrolled in this study. The patient’s demographic characteristics and blood loss-related parameters were collected, respectively. The Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis was used to investigate an association between patient’s characteristics and HBL. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to confirm independent risk factors of HBL. Results A total of 137 patients (86 males and 51 females, age range 19–78 years) were reviewed in our hospital. A substantial amount of HBL (488.4 ± 294.0 ml, 52.5% of TBL) occurred after MIS-TLIF. Multivariate linear regression showed that the age, muscle thickness, the Patients’ Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, patient’s blood volume (PBV), total blood loss (TBL), postoperative (i.e., day 2 or 3) hematocrit (Hct), Hct loss, and fibrinogen level were independent risk factors for HBL (P1 = 0.000, P2 = 0.002, P3 = 0.006, P4 = 0.002, P5 = 0.003, P6 = 0.048, P7 = 0.004, P8 = 0.000). Conclusion A large amount of HBL was incurred in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF. More importantly, the age, muscle thickness, ASA classification, PBV, TBL, postoperative Hct, Hct loss, and fibrinogen level were independent risk factors for HBL in MIS-TLIF. HBL and its risk factors should be paid more attention to during the perioperative period.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document