Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Anterior lumbar interbody fusion
Complications
L5/S1 fusion
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Risk factors
Transforaminal lumbar 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:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
12
08
2020
accepted:
25
09
2020
pubmed:
5
1
2021
medline:
5
1
2021
entrez:
4
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33389967
pii: asj.2020.0405
doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0405
pmc: PMC8873994
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
141-149Références
J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 Feb;12(2):171-7
pubmed: 20121352
Global Spine J. 2016 Mar;6(2):147-54
pubmed: 26933616
Indian J Orthop. 2017 Mar-Apr;51(2):139-146
pubmed: 28400658
Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Feb 23;8:33-45
pubmed: 25780341
Asian Spine J. 2016 Dec;10(6):1100-1105
pubmed: 27994787
Eur Spine J. 2009 Nov;18(11):1621-8
pubmed: 19475436
J Orthop Surg Res. 2015 May 28;10:79
pubmed: 26016564
Neurosurgery. 2015 Jan;76(1):7-23; discussion 23-4
pubmed: 25255259
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 15;31(20):2329-36
pubmed: 16985461
Singapore Med J. 2012 Mar;53(3):183-7
pubmed: 22434292
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Oct 1;42(19):1502-1510
pubmed: 28248893
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2009 Jun;2(2):118-26
pubmed: 19468868
J Clin Neurosci. 2017 Oct;44:11-17
pubmed: 28676316
Eur Spine J. 2013 Mar;22 Suppl 1:S16-20
pubmed: 23250515
Eur Spine J. 2014 Apr;23 Suppl 1:S86-92
pubmed: 24531989
Spine J. 2015 Jul 01;15(7):1519-26
pubmed: 25728553
J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Nov;25(5):591-595
pubmed: 27231813
Int J Spine Surg. 2015 Jun 09;9:22
pubmed: 26196029
J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Dec;34:94-99
pubmed: 27469413
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Oct 15;36(22):1867-77
pubmed: 20453725
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Jan 1;37(1):67-76
pubmed: 21311399
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Apr 15;27(8):806-11
pubmed: 11935101
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Aug;21(2):171-8
pubmed: 24836656
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 May 20;38(12):E755-62
pubmed: 23442780
J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Jul;7(1):21-6
pubmed: 17633483
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006 Apr;19(2):92-7
pubmed: 16760781
Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 19;6(1):263
pubmed: 29258593
J Neurosurg Spine. 2008 Nov;9(5):403-7
pubmed: 18976169
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Feb;103(1S):S151-S159
pubmed: 28043852
Orthop Surg. 2013 Aug;5(3):153-63
pubmed: 24002831
Spine J. 2010 Sep;10(9):844
pubmed: 20656563
Global Spine J. 2016 Aug;6(5):472-81
pubmed: 27433432
World Neurosurg. 2017 Jul;103:772-779
pubmed: 28433838
Global Spine J. 2016 Nov;6(7):665-672
pubmed: 27781186
Orthopade. 2016 Sep;45(9):760-9
pubmed: 27565160
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 Aug;136(8):1063-7
pubmed: 27312862
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017 Jul;158:49-52
pubmed: 28460342
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Aug;96(33):e7804
pubmed: 28816975
J Spine Surg. 2015 Dec;1(1):2-18
pubmed: 27683674
Neurosurg Focus. 2003 Sep 15;15(3):E1
pubmed: 15347219
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Oct;21(4):601-7
pubmed: 25084031
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Feb 1;31(3):303-8
pubmed: 16449903
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015 Oct;58(4):350-6
pubmed: 26587189
Spine J. 2017 Nov;17(11):1712-1721
pubmed: 28647584
Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336-41
pubmed: 20171303