scholarly journals Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Interbody Fusion Technique for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Life ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 696
Author(s):  
Min Cheol Chang ◽  
Gang-Un Kim ◽  
Yoo Jin Choo ◽  
Gun Woo Lee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Surgery ◽  
Fusion Technique ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Preoperative pathology requiring fusion surgery has a great impact on postoperative outcomes. However, the previous clinical and meta-analysis studies did not control for the pathology. In this systematic review, the authors aimed to compare oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) as an interbody fusion technique in lumbar fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). We systematically searched for relevant articles in the available databases. Among the 3022 articles, three studies were identified and met the inclusion criteria. In terms of radiological outcome, the amount of disc height restoration was greater in the OLIF group than in the TLIF group, but there was no significant difference between the two surgical techniques (p = 0.18). In the clinical outcomes, the pain improvement was not significantly different between the two surgical techniques. In terms of surgical outcomes, OLIF resulted in a shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss than TLIF (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively). The present meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in clinical, radiological outcomes, and surgical time between TLIF and OLIF for DS, but the lengths of hospital stay and blood loss were better in OLIF than TLIF. Though encouraging, these findings were based on low-quality evidence from a small number of retrospective studies that are prone to bias.

Factors Affecting Slip Reduction in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Fixation for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822198929
Author(s):  
Nam-Su Chung ◽  
Han-Dong Lee ◽  
Chang-Hoon Jeon ◽  
Seungmin Jeong
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Large Angle ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
The Mean

Study Design: Retrospective case series Objectives: Reduction of translational/angular slip is a favorable radiological result in spinal fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis, although its clinical significance remains controversial. Few studies have investigated slip reduction and associated factors in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods: This study involved a retrospective analysis of 56 operated levels of 52 consecutive patients who underwent OLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis and had more than 1-year of regular follow-up. Translational/angular slip, anterior/posterior disc height, and spinopelvic parameters were measured preoperatively, postoperatively at 6-weeks, and at the last follow-up. Demographic, radiological, and surgical parameters were analyzed to determine factors associated with the amount of slip reduction. Result: The mean follow-up duration was 30.4 ± 12.9 months (range, 12 to 61). The mean decrease in translational slip was 5.7 ± 2.1 mm (13.6 ± 5.5%) and the mean increase in angular slip was 7.9 ± 7.1° at the last follow-up (both P < 0.001). The amount of slip reduction was greater in female sex, age < 65 years, use of a 12° cage, cage position from the anterior disc margin of < 7 mm, and cases with posterior decompression (laminectomy with inferior facetectomy). Conclusions: OLIF showed satisfactory translational/angular slip reduction in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Surgical techniques for optimal reduction include the use of a large angle cage, anterior cage placement, and resection of the inferior facet.

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 Posterior fixation can further improve the segmental alignment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with oblique lumbar interbody fusion

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingye Wu ◽  
Tenghui Ge ◽  
Ning Zhang ◽  
Jianing Li ◽  
Wei Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Reduction Ratio ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Slip Ratio ◽  
Radiographic Parameters ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Segmental Lordosis

Abstract Background For patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, whether additional posterior fixation can further improve segmental alignment is unknown, compared with stand-alone cage insertion in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) procedure. The aim of this study was to compare changes of the radiographical segmental alignment following stand-alone cage insertion and additional posterior fixation in the same procedure setting of OLIF for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods A retrospective observational study. Selected consecutive patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent OLIF procedure from July 2017 to August 2019. Five radiographic parameters of disc height (DH), DH-Anterior, DH-Posterior, slip ratio and segmental lordosis (SL) were measured on preoperative CT scans and intraoperative fluoroscopic images. Comparisons of those radiographic parameters prior to cage insertion, following cage insertion and following posterior fixation were performed. Results A total of thirty-three patients including six males and twenty-seven females, with an average age of 66.9 ± 8.7 years, were reviewed. Totally thirty-six slipped levels were assessed with thirty levels at L4/5, four at L3/4 and two at L2/3. Intraoperatively, with only anterior cage support, DH was increased from 8.2 ± 1.6 mm to 11.8 ± 1.7 mm (p < 0.001), DH-Anterior was increased from 9.6 ± 2.3 mm to 13.4 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001), DH-Posterior was increased from 6.1 ± 1.9 mm to 9.1 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001), the slip ratio was reduced from 11.1 ± 4.6% to 8.3 ± 4.4% (p = 0.020) with the slip reduction ratio 25.6 ± 32.3%, and SL was slightly changed from 8.7 ± 3.7° to 8.3 ± 3.0°(p = 1.000). Following posterior fixation, the DH was unchanged (from 11.8 ± 1.7 mm to 11.8 ± 2.3 mm, p = 1.000), DH-Anterior and DH-Posterior were slightly changed from 13.4 ± 2.1 mm and 9.1 ± 2.1 mm to 13.7 ± 2.3 mm and 8.4 ± 1.8 mm respectively (P = 0.861, P = 0.254), the slip ratio was reduced from 8.3 ± 4.4% to 2.1 ± 3.6% (p < 0.001) with the slip reduction ratio 57.9 ± 43.9%, and the SL was increased from 8.3 ± 3.0° to 10.7 ± 3.6° (p = 0.008). Conclusions Compared with stand-alone cage insertion, additional posterior fixation provides better segmental alignment improvement in terms of slip reduction and segmental lordosis in OLIF procedures in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

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