We aimed to systematically review the literature to analyze the differences in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), focusing on the complications, risk factors, and fusion rate of each approach. Spinal fusion surgery is a well-established surgical procedure for a variety of indications, and different approaches developed. The various approaches and their advantages, as well as approach-related pathology and complications, are well investigated in spinal surgery. Focusing only on lumbosacral fusion, the comparative studies of different approaches remain fewer in numbers. We systematically reviewed the literature on the complications associated with lumbosacral interbody fusion. Only the PLIF, ALIF, or TLIF approaches and studies published within the last decade (2007-2017) were included. The exclusion criteria in this study were oblique lumbar interbody fusion, extreme lateral interbody fusion, more than one procedure per patient, and reported patient numbers less than 10. The outcome variables were indications, fusion rates, operation time, perioperative complications, and clinical outcome by means of Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. Five prospective, 17 retrospective, and two comparative studies that investigated the lumbosacral region were included. Mean fusion rates were 91,4%. ALIF showed a higher operation time, while PLIF resulted in greater blood loss. In all approaches, significant improvements in the clinical outcome were achieved, with ALIF showing slightly better results. Regarding complications, the ALIF technique showed the highest complication rates. Lumbosacral fusion surgery is a treatment to provide good results either through an approach for various indications as causes of lower back pain. For each surgical approach, advantages can be depicted. However, perioperative complications and risk factors are numerous and vary with ALIF, PLIF, and TLIF procedures, as well as with fusion rates.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8873994 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0405 | DOI Listing |
Front Med (Lausanne)
December 2024
Department of Orthopedics, Tongren Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Background: Cage subsidence frequently complicates lumbar fusion procedures, including lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), potentially leading to recurrent pain, impaired fusion, and accelerated degeneration of adjacent segments. A critical factor influencing cage subsidence is the selection of material. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and three-dimensional printed titanium (3D-Ti) cages are commonly used in LLIF procedures, each offering distinct advantages.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFFront Bioeng Biotechnol
December 2024
Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, China.
Objective: In the current study, to demonstrate the advantages of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), we focused on the therapeutics for lumbar spinal tuberculosis with the comparison of three treatments, including anterior approach, posterior approach, and OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation.
Methods: This study included patients with lumbar spinal tuberculosis from July 2015 to June 2018. We divided these patients into three groups: 35 patients underwent an anterior-only approach (Group A), 36 patients underwent a posterior-only approach (Group B), and 31 patients underwent OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (Group C).
Purpose: Synthetic cages are commonly used in posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Using morselized corticocancellous bone from spinous processes and laminae has been suggested as an alternative, especially in low-resource settings where access to synthetic cages is limited. The aim of this study was to compare radiographic and functional outcomes of synthetic cages with those of morselized local autograft.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Orthop Surg Res
December 2024
Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China.
Objective: This study aims to perform a meta-analysis that integrates multiple literature sources to evaluate the clinical efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treating lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).
Methods: A systematic search was conducted across various databases, including CNKI, VIP, WANFANG DATA, SinoMed, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, for clinical comparative studies on OLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating LDD, covering the time frame from the inception of the databases to September 2024. Following PRISMA guidelines, studies were screened, assessed, and data were extracted rigorously.
Indian J Orthop
January 2025
Department of Pharmacology, AIl India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, 751019 India.
Purpose: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) are the most commonly conducted operations for interbody fusions. In addition to fusion, the restoration of proper spinal alignment has become crucial for achieving favorable functional outcomes. There is a lack of agreement on which lumbar interbody fusion technique provides the most effective correction for sagittal spinopelvic parameters (SSPs).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!