Day Case Lumbar Fusion Surgery
This study compared the rates of lumbosacral arthrodesis between anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Ninety-six patients were retrospectively evaluated, and the fusion results were categorized as solid fusion, indeterminate fusion, or pseudarthroses. The study found that the ALIF group had a higher rate of solid radiographic fusions compared to the TLIF group. Indeterminate fusion occurred more frequently in the TLIF group. However, there was no significant difference in radiographic pseudarthrosis between the two groups. Overall, the study suggests that ALIF may be more effective in achieving solid fusion in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis
Summarised by Mr Mo Akmal – Lead Spinal Surgeon
The London Spine Unit : most experienced treatment hospital on Harley Street UK
Published article
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Lumbar Fusion Surgery Expert. Best Spinal Surgeon UK
Orthop Surg. 2023 Aug 1. doi: 10.1111/os.13812. Online ahead of print.ABSTRACTOBJECTIVE: 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,
Orthop Surg. 2023 Aug 1. doi: 10.1111/os.13812. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
PMID:37526121 | DOI:10.1111/os.13812
The London Spine Unit : most experienced treatment hospital on Harley Street UK
Read the original publication:
Comparison of Lumbosacral Fusion Grade in Patients after Transforaminal and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up