Study Design: Retrospective cohort.
Objective: To compare the rate of adjacent segment disease (ASD) in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for the treatment of degenerative stenosis and spondylolisthesis.
Summary Of Background Data: ALIF and TLIF are frequently used to treat Lumbar stenosis and spondylolisthesis. While both approaches have distinct advantages, it is unclear whether there are any differences in rates of ASD and postoperative complications.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent index 1-3 levels ALIF or TLIF between 2010 and 2022, using the PearlDiver Mariner Database, an all-claims insurance database (120 million patients). Patients with a history of prior lumbar surgery and those undergoing surgery for cancer, trauma, or infection were excluded. Exact 1:1 matching was performed using demographic factors, medical comorbidities, and surgical factors found to be significantly associated with ASD in a linear regression model. The primary outcome was a new diagnosis of ASD within 36 months of index surgery, and secondary outcomes were all-cause medical and surgical complications.
Results: Exact 1:1 matching resulted in 2 equal groups of 106,451 patients undergoing TLIF and ALIF. The TLIF approach was associated with a lower risk of ASD (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.56-0.59, P < 0.001) and all-cause medical complications (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.98, P =0.002). All-cause surgical complications were not significantly different between both groups.
Conclusion: After 1:1 exact matching to control for confounding variables, this study suggests that for patients with symptomatic degenerative stenosis and spondylolisthesis, a TLIF procedure (compared to ALIF) is associated with a decreased risk of developing ASD within 36 months of index surgery. Future prospective studies are needed to corroborate these findings.
Level Of Evidence: Level-3.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004694 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Changes in Segmental and Lumbar Lordosis Following Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Clin Spine Surg
November 2024
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine at The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objective: To compare radiographic outcomes across lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques, assessing segmental and global lumbar lordosis restoration.
Summary Of Background Data: LIF is a commonly utilized procedure to treat various spinal conditions, including degenerative pathology and adult spinal deformity.
Comparison of patient outcomes of anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusions: A retrospective national database analysis.
J Orthop
April 2025
Department of Orthopedics, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, USA.
Article Synopsis
- Lumbar interbody fusions, used for treating degenerative lumbar disease not responsive to conservative measures, include anterior (ALIF) and posterior (PLIF/TLIF) approaches, but comparative outcome research is limited.
- The study analyzed patient data from the PearlDiver Database between 2010 and 2022, focusing on demographics, comorbidities, and reoperation rates over various timeframes.
- Findings indicated that while posterior fusions had higher reoperation rates and certain complications, anterior fusions are becoming more common, raising questions about the best surgical approach.
Answer to the letter to the editor of Franz Jooji Onishi concerning "A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)" by Rathbone J, et al. (Eur Spine J [2023]: doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07567-x).
Eur Spine J
November 2024
Gold Coast Spine, 27 Garden Street, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
Letter to the editor concerning "A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)" by Rathbone J, et al. (Eur Spine J [2023]: doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07567-x).
Eur Spine J
October 2024
Neurosurgeon, UNIFESP Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Comparison of Complication Rates Between Transforaminal Interbody Fusion and Anteroposterior Fusion for One- or Two-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.
Cureus
August 2024
Research, Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, USA.
Article Synopsis
- The study compares the outcomes of transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) combined with posterior fusion (AP) regarding post-operative complications and pain management in patients.
- Results show that TLIF patients experienced shorter operative times and hospital stays compared to AP patients, but there was no significant difference in residual leg or back pain between the two approaches.
- Overall, both surgical methods had similar complication rates, except for constipation, which was more prevalent in the AP group, suggesting that the choice of surgical approach should consider these factors.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!