Cargando…

Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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 f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lenz, Maximilian, Mohamud, Kaliye, Bredow, Jan, Oikonomidis, Stavros, Eysel, Peer, Scheyerer, Max Joseph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8873994/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33389967
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0405
_version_ 1784657584423174144
author Lenz, Maximilian
Mohamud, Kaliye
Bredow, Jan
Oikonomidis, Stavros
Eysel, Peer
Scheyerer, Max Joseph
author_facet Lenz, Maximilian
Mohamud, Kaliye
Bredow, Jan
Oikonomidis, Stavros
Eysel, Peer
Scheyerer, Max Joseph
author_sort Lenz, Maximilian
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8873994
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Korean Society of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88739942022-03-08 Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Lenz, Maximilian Mohamud, Kaliye Bredow, Jan Oikonomidis, Stavros Eysel, Peer Scheyerer, Max Joseph Asian Spine J Review Article 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. Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2022-02 2021-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8873994/ /pubmed/33389967 http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0405 Text en Copyright © 2022 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Lenz, Maximilian
Mohamud, Kaliye
Bredow, Jan
Oikonomidis, Stavros
Eysel, Peer
Scheyerer, Max Joseph
Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort comparison of different approaches in lumbosacral spinal fusion surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8873994/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33389967
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0405
work_keys_str_mv AT lenzmaximilian comparisonofdifferentapproachesinlumbosacralspinalfusionsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mohamudkaliye comparisonofdifferentapproachesinlumbosacralspinalfusionsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bredowjan comparisonofdifferentapproachesinlumbosacralspinalfusionsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT oikonomidisstavros comparisonofdifferentapproachesinlumbosacralspinalfusionsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT eyselpeer comparisonofdifferentapproachesinlumbosacralspinalfusionsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT scheyerermaxjoseph comparisonofdifferentapproachesinlumbosacralspinalfusionsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis