Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs), morbidity, and costs of TLIF vs PLF to determine whether one treatment was superior in the setting of single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis.
Methods: Patients undergoing TLIF or PLF for single-level spondylolisthesis were included for retrospective analysis. EQ-5D, ODI, SF-12 MCS/PCS, NRS-BP/LP scores were collected at baseline and 24 months after surgery. 90-day post-operative complications, revision surgery rates, and satisfaction scores were also collected. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare payment amounts (direct cost). Patient and caregiver workday losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). Total cost was used to assess mean total 2-year cost per QALYs gained after surgery.
Results: 62 and 37 patients underwent TLIF and PLF, respectively. Patients in the PLF group were older (p < 0.01). No significant differences were seen in baseline or 24-month PROs between the two groups. There was a significant improvement in all PROs from baseline to 24 months after surgery (p < 0.001). Both groups had similar rates of 90-day complications, revision surgery, satisfaction, and similar gain in QALYs and cost per QALYs gained. There was no significant difference in 24-month direct, indirect, and total cost.
Conclusions: Overall costs and health care utilization were similar in both the groups. Both TLIF and PLF for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis provide improvement in disability, pain, quality of life, and general health.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5142-3 | DOI Listing |
Med Eng Phys
December 2024
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology (IIEST), Shibpur, Howrah 711103, West Bengal, India. Electronic address:
Various finite element (FE) studies reported the biomechanical effects of fusion surgeries in the lumbar spine. However, a comparative study on Open laminectomy plus Posterolateral Fusion (OL-PLF) and Open Laminectomy plus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OL-TLIF) for fusing an L4-L5 segment has not been reported in the literature. The present comparative FE study evaluates the biomechanical variations in an L4-L5 segment fused using OL-PLF and OL-TLIF surgical approaches.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEur Spine J
November 2024
Gold Coast Spine, 27 Garden Street, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
Eur Spine J
October 2024
Neurosurgeon, UNIFESP Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Med Eng Phys
June 2024
QI Spine Clinic, Mumbai, India; Knee & Orthopaedic Clinic, Mumbai, India.
Several finite element (FE) studies reported performances of various lumbar fusion surgical approaches. However, comparative studies on the performance of Open Laminectomy plus Posterolateral Fusion (OL-PLF) and Open Laminectomy plus Transforaminal Interbody Fusion (OL-TLIF) surgical approaches are rare. In the current FE study, the variation in ranges of motions (ROM), stress-strain distributions in an implanted functional spinal unit (FSU) and caudal adjacent soft structures between OL-PLF and OL-TLIF virtual models were investigated.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEur Spine J
May 2024
Department of Orthopaedic, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Université de Paris Cité, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!