Cargando…

Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases. DESIGN: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Sc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wasinpongwanich, Kanthika, Nopsopon, Tanawin, Pongpirul, Krit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8964266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35360425
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.829469
_version_ 1784678176191938560
author Wasinpongwanich, Kanthika
Nopsopon, Tanawin
Pongpirul, Krit
author_facet Wasinpongwanich, Kanthika
Nopsopon, Tanawin
Pongpirul, Krit
author_sort Wasinpongwanich, Kanthika
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases. DESIGN: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2013 through December 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral fusion (PLF) and/or other lumbar interbody fusion were included for the review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval of fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complications in TLIF and other techniques for lumbar spinal diseases. RESULTS: Of 3,682 potential studies, 15 RCTs (915 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to other surgical techniques, TLIF had slightly lower fusion rate [RR = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.72–0.97), p = 0.02, I(2) = 0.0%] at 1-year follow-up whereas there was no difference on fusion rate at 2-year follow-up [RR = 1.06 (95% CI = 0.96–1.18), p = 0.27, I(2) = 69.0%]. The estimated RR of total adverse events [RR = 0.90 (95% CI = 0.59–1.38), p = 0.63, I(2) = 0.0%] was similar to no fusion, PLF, PLIF, and XLIF groups, and revision rate [RR = 0.78 (95% CI = 0.34–1.79), p = 0.56, I(2) = 39.0%] was similar to PLF and XLIF groups. TLIF had approximately half an hour more operative time than other techniques (no fusion, ALIF, PLF, PLIF, XLIF) [MD = 31.88 (95% CI = 5.33–58.44), p = 0.02, I(2) = 92.0%]. There was no significant difference between TLIF and other techniques in terms of blood loss (no fusion, PLIF, PLF) and clinical outcomes (PLF). CONCLUSIONS: Besides fusion rate at 1-year follow-up and operative time, TLIF has a similar fusion rate, clinical outcomes, parameters concerning operation and complications to no fusion, PLF, and other interbody fusion (PLIF, ALIF, XLIF). SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020186858.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8964266
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89642662022-03-30 Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Wasinpongwanich, Kanthika Nopsopon, Tanawin Pongpirul, Krit Front Surg Surgery OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases. DESIGN: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2013 through December 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral fusion (PLF) and/or other lumbar interbody fusion were included for the review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval of fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complications in TLIF and other techniques for lumbar spinal diseases. RESULTS: Of 3,682 potential studies, 15 RCTs (915 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to other surgical techniques, TLIF had slightly lower fusion rate [RR = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.72–0.97), p = 0.02, I(2) = 0.0%] at 1-year follow-up whereas there was no difference on fusion rate at 2-year follow-up [RR = 1.06 (95% CI = 0.96–1.18), p = 0.27, I(2) = 69.0%]. The estimated RR of total adverse events [RR = 0.90 (95% CI = 0.59–1.38), p = 0.63, I(2) = 0.0%] was similar to no fusion, PLF, PLIF, and XLIF groups, and revision rate [RR = 0.78 (95% CI = 0.34–1.79), p = 0.56, I(2) = 39.0%] was similar to PLF and XLIF groups. TLIF had approximately half an hour more operative time than other techniques (no fusion, ALIF, PLF, PLIF, XLIF) [MD = 31.88 (95% CI = 5.33–58.44), p = 0.02, I(2) = 92.0%]. There was no significant difference between TLIF and other techniques in terms of blood loss (no fusion, PLIF, PLF) and clinical outcomes (PLF). CONCLUSIONS: Besides fusion rate at 1-year follow-up and operative time, TLIF has a similar fusion rate, clinical outcomes, parameters concerning operation and complications to no fusion, PLF, and other interbody fusion (PLIF, ALIF, XLIF). SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020186858. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8964266/ /pubmed/35360425 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.829469 Text en Copyright © 2022 Wasinpongwanich, Nopsopon and Pongpirul. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Wasinpongwanich, Kanthika
Nopsopon, Tanawin
Pongpirul, Krit
Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort surgical treatments for lumbar spine diseases (tlif vs. other surgical techniques): a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8964266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35360425
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.829469
work_keys_str_mv AT wasinpongwanichkanthika surgicaltreatmentsforlumbarspinediseasestlifvsothersurgicaltechniquesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT nopsopontanawin surgicaltreatmentsforlumbarspinediseasestlifvsothersurgicaltechniquesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT pongpirulkrit surgicaltreatmentsforlumbarspinediseasestlifvsothersurgicaltechniquesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis