Sagittal Balance Correction Following Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of the Three Approaches.

Interbody fusion Lateral interbody fusion Minimally invasive Sagittal balance Transforaminal interbody fusion

Journal

Asian spine journal
ISSN: 1976-1902
Titre abrégé: Asian Spine J
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101314177

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Historique:
received: 03 06 2018
accepted: 20 11 2018
pubmed: 27 3 2019
medline: 27 3 2019
entrez: 27 3 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Retrospective cohort study. The objective of this study was to compare three widely used interbody fusion approaches in regard to their ability to correct sagittal balance, including pelvic parameters. Restoration of sagittal balance in lumbar spine surgery is associated with better postoperative outcomes. Various interbody fusion techniques can help to correct sagittal balance, with no clear consensus on which technique offers the best correction. The charts and imaging of patients who have undergone surgery through either open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MIS TLIF), or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) were retrospectively reviewed. The following sagittal balance parameters were measured pre- and postoperatively: segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, disk height, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence. Data on postoperative complications were gathered. Only OLIF managed to significantly improve segmental lordosis (4.4°, p <0.001) and lumbar lordosis (4.8°, p =0.049). All approaches significantly augmented disk height, with OLIF having the greatest effect (3.7°, p <0.001). No approaches were shown to significantly correct pelvic tilt. Pelvic incidence remained unchanged in all approaches. Open TLIF was the only approach with a higher rate of postoperative complications (33%, p =0.009). The OLIF approach might offer greater correction of sagittal balance over open and MIS TLIF, mainly in regard to segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, and disk height. MIS TLIF, although offering more limited access than open TLIF, was not inferior to open TLIF in regard to sagittal balance correction. A higher rate of complications was shown for open TLIF than the other approaches, possibly due to its more invasive nature.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30909679
pii: asj.2018.0128
doi: 10.31616/asj.2018.0128
pmc: PMC6547387
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

450-458

Références

J Orthop Res. 2003 Mar;21(2):373-8
pubmed: 12568972
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Feb 1;30(3):346-53
pubmed: 15682018
Bull Acad Natl Med. 2005 Feb;189(2):287-97; discussion 297-300
pubmed: 16114859
J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Oct;7(4):379-86
pubmed: 17933310
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Jul 1;34(15):E519-27
pubmed: 19564757
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010 Feb;23(1):40-2
pubmed: 20134287
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Feb 1;36(3):183-91
pubmed: 21248589
Eur Spine J. 2011 Sep;20 Suppl 5:578-85
pubmed: 21796394
Neurosurgery. 2012 Mar;70(3):707-21
pubmed: 21937939
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013 Jul;26(5):246-51
pubmed: 22158301
Eur Spine J. 2012 Jun;21(6):1200-6
pubmed: 22179755
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014 Feb;27(1):E20-5
pubmed: 23511643
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 1;38(21):E1334-41
pubmed: 23797504
World Neurosurg. 2014 Jan;81(1):177-82
pubmed: 23916495
Eur Spine J. 2014 Oct;23 Suppl 6:699-704
pubmed: 25217242
Eur Spine J. 2014 Oct;23 Suppl 6:705-13
pubmed: 25228107
Eur Spine J. 2015 May;24(5):1017-30
pubmed: 25813010
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jul 1;40(13):1014-21
pubmed: 25893354
Int J Spine Surg. 2015 May 19;9:16
pubmed: 26114085
Asian Spine J. 2015 Aug;9(4):565-72
pubmed: 26240716
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Aug 20;16:213
pubmed: 26289077
J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Nov;33:111-118
pubmed: 27443498
Int J Spine Surg. 2016 Aug 25;10:29
pubmed: 27652200
Interv Neuroradiol. 2017 Feb;23(1):107-111
pubmed: 27765866
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 6;12(6):e0178697
pubmed: 28586366
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Aug;43(2):E10
pubmed: 28760032
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Aug;43(2):E12
pubmed: 28760034
J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Jan;28(1):40-49
pubmed: 29087808
Neurosurg Focus. 2018 Jan;44(1):E8
pubmed: 29290133
J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Feb 20;13(1):38
pubmed: 29463273

Auteurs

Pierre-Olivier Champagne (PO)

Division of Neurosurgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.

Camille Walsh (C)

Division of Neurosurgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.

Jocelyne Diabira (J)

Division of Neurosurgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.

Marie-Élaine Plante (MÉ)

Division of Neurosurgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.

Zhi Wang (Z)

Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.

Ghassan Boubez (G)

Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.

Daniel Shedid (D)

Division of Neurosurgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.

Classifications MeSH