Oblique versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Spine Journal, 2017
The aim of the present study was to analyze outcome, with respect to functional disability, pain, fusion rate, and complications of patients treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in compared to instrumented poserolateral fusion (PLF) alone, in low back pain. Spinal fusion has become a major procedure worldwide. However, conflicting results exist. Theoretical circumferential fusion could improve functional outcome. However, the theoretical advantages lack scientific documentation. Methods Prospective randomized clinical study with a 2-year follow-up period. From November 2003 to November 2008 100 patients with severe low back pain and radicular pain were randomly selected for either posterolateral lumbar fusion [titanium TSRH (Medtronic)] or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [titanium TSRH (Medtronic)] with anterior intervertebral support by tantalum cage (Implex/Zimmer). The primary outcome scores were obtained using Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), Oswestry disability Index, SF-36, and low back pain Rating Scale. All measures assessed the endpoints at 2-year follow-up after surgery. Results The overall follow-up rate was 94 %. Sex ratio was 40/58. 51 patients had TLIF, 47 PLF. Mean age 49(TLIF)/45(PLF). No statistic difference in outcome between groups could be detected concerning daily activity, work leisure, anxiety/depression or social interest. We found no statistic difference concerning back pain or leg pain. In both the TLIF and the PLF groups the patients had significant improvement in functional outcome, back pain, and leg pain compared to preoperatively. Operation time and blood loss in the TLIF group were significantly higher than in the PLF group (p \ 0.001). No statistic difference in fusion rates was detected. Conclusions Transforaminal interbody fusion did not improve functional outcome in patients compared to posterolateral fusion. Both groups improved significantly in all categories compared to preoperatively. Operation time and blood loss were significantly higher in the TLIF group.
Egyptian Spine Journal, 2021
Background Data: Degenerative lumbar spine, including spondylolisthesis, is a common clinical condition that affects humans in the most productive period of their life. There are many surgical options for the management of such conditions after the failure of conservative therapy. Recently, there has been a great debate regarding the use of minimally invasive (MI) versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) in the treatment of single-level low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis, so there was a need to reach a consensus over this issue. Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of MI-TLIF versus O-TLIF in the treatment of single-level low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Study Design: A systematic review for recent studies in the context and meta-analysis. Patients and Methods: We searched online databases of PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and DOAJ (2016–2020), and the search yielded 1352 articles. Based on our inclusion and exclusion cri...
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis have not been validated in many prospective randomized trials. AIM: We aimed to validate the safety and efficacy of TLIF and PLIF surgery in lumbar spondylolisthesis using the clinical, radiographic, and cost-utility outcomes. METHODS: The data of surgically treated single-level spondylolisthesis patients were randomized prospectively into two groups. The groups were compared regarding demographics, perioperative complications, hospital stay, total expenditure, fusion rate, and clinical outcomes (visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication scale, and Odom’s criteria). A review of literature was done to compare the outcomes with the ones from higher-income nations. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent prospective randomization. The improvement in the clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up showed impr...
International Journal of Clinical Medicine
Introduction: Surgical interventions for degenerative spondylolisthesis are varied with comparable claims of success. Fusion based technique is one of the most commonly used surgical interventions in treating this condition. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness of the Lumbar Interbody Fusion techniques (specifically Posterolateral Interbody approach-PLIF) versus Posterolateral Instrumented Fusion (PLF). The clinical outcomes investigated were: back pain, leg pain, function, Oswestery Disability Index (ODI), Disability Rating Index (DRI), fusion and revision rates if reported. Methods: Combinations of keywords and MeSH terms, where appropriate, were used to search for studies in Medline via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google scholar. The initial search was conducted on 10 August 2016 and updated on 13 June 2017. Eligibility criteria for the studies to be selected for this meta-analysis were: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), cohort and consecutive cases studies that compared at PLIF versus PLF surgical interventions at the lumbar region. Heterogeneity indicators and Forest plot were computed using RevMan 5. Results: Out of the initial hits of 3021, 5 articles were selected as relevant and assessed for risk of bias and then data was extracted and tabulated. These 5 studies reported data from (900 patients' records, follow up ranges from 6 months to 5 years) undergone one of 2 interventions (PLIF or PLF). The overall effect for ODI and leg pain showed no advantage of any intervention over the other while there was a greater odd ratio of fusion if the operation applied PLIF techniques (Overall Z = 2.86, p = 0.004). Conclusions: There is a need for more high quality clinical trials to compare these two interventions. However, available data indicate that there
Bratislavské lekárske listy, 2021
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a relatively common cause of low back and lower extremity pain. The most common type, degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS), is a disease that causes stenosis of the spinal canal. Two surgical methods of treatment are widely accepted, namely posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, the fi ndings of 333 consecutive DLS patients who underwent surgical decompression with instrumented fusion were analyzed in a prospective study at the
Scholars Journal of Applied Medical Sciences
Objective: In this study our main goal is to compare the efficiency of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (FLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Method: This experimental observational type study was carried out at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University and different private hospital in Dhaka from July, 2006 to December 2019. A total number of 340(PLIF=150, TLIF=190) patients underwent lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of adult lumbar spondylolisthesis were taken as a study sample. Results: During the study, surgical outcomes between PLIF and TLIF where there were significant differences between the groups in relation to VAS for back pain. These variables were significantly higher in the TLIF group compared to the PLIF group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to VAS for leg pain at final follow-up. However prevalence of Nerve Root injury,Dural tearan...
Asian Spine Journal, 2015
Level 4 retrospective review. Purpose: To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior segmental spinal instrumentation (SSI) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Overview of Literature: Both PLIF and LLIF have been performed for degenerative spondylolisthesis with good results, but no study has directly compared these two techniques so far. Methods: The electronic medical and radiographic records of 78 matched patients were analyzed. In one group, 39 patients underwent PLIF with SSI at 41 levels (L3-4/L4-5), while in the other group, 39 patients underwent the LLIF procedure at 48 levels (L3-4/ L4-5). Radiological outcomes such as restoration of disc height and neuroforaminal height, segmental lumbar lordosis, total lumbar lordosis, incidence of endplate fracture, and subsidence were measured. Perioperative parameters were also recorded in each group. Clinical outcome in both groups was assessed by the short form-12, Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale scores. The average follow-up period was 16.1 months in the LLIF group and 21 months in the PLIF group. Results: The restoration of disc height, foraminal height, and segmental lumbar lordosis was significantly better in the LLIF group (p<0.001). The duration of the operation was similar in both groups, but the average blood loss was significantly lower in the LLIF group (p<0.001). However, clinical outcome scores were similar in both groups. Conclusions: Safe, effective interbody fusion can be achieved at multiple levels with neuromonitoring by the lateral approach. LLIF is a viable treatment option in patients with new onset symptoms due to degenerative spondylolisthesis who have had previous lumbar spine surgery, and it results in improved sagittal alignment and indirect foraminal decompression.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2016
Background: With a steep increase in the number of instrumented spinal fusion procedures, there is a need for comparative data to develop evidence based treatment recommendations. Currently, the available data on cost and clinical effectiveness of the two most frequently performed surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), are not sufficient. Therefore, current guidelines do not advise which is the most appropriate surgical treatment strategy for these patients. Nonrandomized studies comparing TLIF and PLIF moreover suggest that TLIF is associated with fewer complications, less blood loss, shorter surgical time and hospital duration. TLIF may therefore be more cost-effective. The results of this study will provide knowledge on short-and long-term clinical and economical effects of TLIF and PLIF procedures, which will lead to recommendations for treating patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: Multicenter blinded Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT; blinding for the patient and statistician, not for the clinician and researcher). A total of 144 patients over 18 years old with symptomatic single level lumbar degenerative, isthmic or iatrogenic spondylolisthesis whom are candidates for LIF (lumbar interbody fusion) surgery through a posterior approach will be randomly allocated to TLIF or PLIF. The study will consist of three parts: 1) a clinical effectiveness study, 2) a cost-effectiveness study, and 3) a process evaluation. The primary clinical outcome measures are: change in disability measured with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and change in quality adjusted life years (QALY) measured with EQ-5D-5L. Secondary clinical outcome measures are: Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36), VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), complications, productivity related costs (iPCQ) and medical costs (iMCQ). Measurements will be carried out at five fixed time points (pre-operatively and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months).
Neurosurgical Focus, 2019
OBJECTIVEThe optimal minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approach for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis is not clearly elucidated. In this study, the authors compared the 24-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and MIS decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.METHODSA total of 608 patients from 12 high-enrolling sites participating in the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) lumbar spondylolisthesis module underwent single-level surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis, of whom 143 underwent MIS (72 MIS TLIF [50.3%] and 71 MIS decompression [49.7%]). Surgeries were classified as MIS if there was utilization of percutaneous screw fixation and placement of a Wiltse plane MIS intervertebral body graft (MIS TLIF) or if there was a tubular decompression (MIS decompression). Parameters obtained at baseline through at least 24 months of follow-up were collected. PROs included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI...
Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2007
Object The purpose of this study was to compare the imaging and clinical outcomes obtained in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who have undergone either instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or instrumented posterior LIF (PLIF), especially with regard to the development of adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD). Methods Forty-eight patients with preoperative spondylolisthesis and minimal ASD who underwent instrumented L4–5 fusion were divided into two groups according to the surgical approach. After ensuring the two groups' comparability, the following variables were evaluated: postoperative segmental and lumbar lordosis, postoperative percentage of vertebral slippage, reduction rate, incidence of ASD, and clinical outcomes. Results Adjacent-segment degeneration was found in 44.0% of the patients in the ALIF group and in 82.6% of those in the PLIF group (p = 0.008). Clinical success rates were 92.0 and 87.0% in the ALIF and PLIF groups, respectively. There were...