Comparison of Lumbosacral Fusion Grade in Patients after Transforaminal and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.
ALIF
Arthrodesis
Fusion grade
Pseudarthrosis
Solid fusion
TLIF
Journal
Orthopaedic surgery
ISSN: 1757-7861
Titre abrégé: Orthop Surg
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101501666
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
revised:
10
04
2023
received:
27
08
2022
accepted:
13
04
2023
medline:
5
9
2023
pubmed:
1
8
2023
entrez:
1
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Generally, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) was believed superior to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in induction of fusion. However, many studies have reported comparable results in lumbosacral fusion rate between the two approaches. This study aimed to evaluate the realistic lumbosacral arthrodesis rates following ALIF and TLIF in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis as measured by CT and radiology. Ninety-six patients who underwent single-level L5-S1 fusion through ALIF (n = 48) or TLIF (n = 48) for degenerative spondylolisthesis at the Spine Center, University of California San Francisco, between October 2014 and December 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Fusion was independently evaluated and categorized as solid fusion, indeterminate fusion, or pseudarthroses by two radiologists using the modified Brantigan-Steffee-Fraser (mBSF) grade. Clinical data on sex, age, body mass index, Meyerding grade, smoking status, follow-up times, complications, and radiological parameters including disc height, disc angle, segmental lordosis, and overall lumbar lordosis were collected. The fusion results and clinical and radiographic data were statistically compared between the ALIF and TLIF groups by using t-test or chi-square test. The mean follow-up period was 37.5 (ranging from 24 to 51) months. Clear, solid radiographic fusions were higher in the ALIF group compared with the TLIF group at the last follow-up (75% vs 47.9%, p = 0.006). Indeterminate fusion occurred in 20.8% (10/48) of ALIF cases and in 43.8% (21/48) of TLIF cases (p = 0.028). Radiographic pseudarthrosis was not significantly different between the TLIF and ALIF groups (16.7% vs 8.3%; p = 0.677). In subgroup analysis of the patients without bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), the solid radiographic fusion rate was significantly higher in the ALIF group than that in the TLIF group (78.6% vs 45.5%; p = 0.037). There were no differences in sex, age, body mass index, Meyerding grade, smoking status, or follow-up time between the two groups (p > 0.05). The ALIF group had more improvement in disc height (7.8 mm vs 4.7 mm), disc angle (5.2° vs 1.5°), segmental lordosis (7.0° vs 2.5°), and overall lumbar lordosis (4.7° vs 0.7°) compared with the TLIF group (p < 0.05). Overall complication rates were similar between the TLIF and ALIF groups (10.4% vs 8.33%; p > 0.999). With a minimum 2-year radiographic analysis of arthrodesis at lumbosacral level by radiologists, the rate of solid radiographic fusions was higher in the ALIF group compared with the TLIF group, whereas the TLIF group had a higher rate of indeterminate fusion. Radiographic pseudarthrosis did not differ significantly between the TLIF and ALIF groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37526121
doi: 10.1111/os.13812
pmc: PMC10475659
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2334-2341Subventions
Organisme : Research and development projects of Sichuan Science and Technology Department
ID : 2022YFS0144
Organisme : Research and development projects of Sichuan Science and Technology Department
ID : 2022YFS0146
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
J Neurosurg Spine. 2020 Oct 09;34(1):83-88
pubmed: 33035999
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Jun;16(6 Suppl):S261-5
pubmed: 1862422
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 May 20;38(12):E755-62
pubmed: 23442780
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Feb;18 Suppl:S30-40
pubmed: 15699803
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008 Jul;21(5):305-9
pubmed: 18600137
Acta Orthop Belg. 2016 Mar;82(1):23-30
pubmed: 26984651
Eur Spine J. 2009 Feb;18(2):203-11
pubmed: 19125304
World Neurosurg. 2022 Jan;157:e111-e122
pubmed: 34610449
Clin Spine Surg. 2018 May;31(4):E230-E238
pubmed: 28622187
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009 Apr;22(2):114-21
pubmed: 19342933
Spine J. 2008 May-Jun;8(3):419-25
pubmed: 18375186
Spine J. 2012 Oct;12(10):877-80
pubmed: 23199819
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Apr 1;29(7):726-33; discussion 733-4
pubmed: 15087793
Spine J. 2010 Jun;10(6):530-43
pubmed: 20381432
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1957 Jun;39-A(3):631-44
pubmed: 13428808
J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Sep;15(3):311-9
pubmed: 21599444
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Sep 15;34(20):2126-33
pubmed: 19752698
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 May 22;99(21):e19979
pubmed: 32481262
Spine J. 2018 Mar;18(3):464-471
pubmed: 28821444
Korean J Spine. 2015 Jun;12(2):60-7
pubmed: 26217384
Eur Spine J. 2012 May;21 Suppl 2:S200-6
pubmed: 22358338
Neurospine. 2022 Mar;19(1):163-176
pubmed: 35378589
Neurospine. 2021 Dec;18(4):854-862
pubmed: 35000341
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 1998 Jun;10(2):90-102
pubmed: 17332991
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985 Mar;(193):47-56
pubmed: 3971636
Int J Spine Surg. 2019 Jun 30;13(3):230-238
pubmed: 31328086
Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2021 Jan 13;20(2):164-173
pubmed: 33035339
Eur Spine J. 2006 Apr;15(4):391-402
pubmed: 16217665
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Oct 15;18(14):2106-7
pubmed: 8272967
Spine J. 2006 Nov-Dec;6(6):606-14
pubmed: 17088191
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 May 15;28(10):997-1001
pubmed: 12768137
J Spinal Disord. 2001 Dec;14(6):533-40
pubmed: 11723406
J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Apr;14(4):488-96
pubmed: 21314280