Dataset Information

Retrospective Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of PLIF and TLIF Techniques in Patients Who Underwent Lumbar Spinal Posterior Stabilization.

ABSTRACT: Degenerative disc disease and spinal stenosis lead to various symptoms. Degeneration of facet joints is added to this degenerative process with aging.Seventy-four patients who were admitted to the Spinal Column Outpatient Clinic of the Neurosurgery Department with a diagnosis of degenerative narrow spinal canal and lumbar spondylolisthesis between 2011 and 2013 and who underwent surgery were included in the study.Our study was conducted with 74 patients of whom 73.0% (n?=?54) were female and 27.0% (n?=?20) were male. Mean age was 54.86?±?7.87 years (range 34-74).Although we did not detect a difference between the two surgical methods with regard to clinical improvement, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is preferred due to radiological advantages observed one year later, ease of application, and the development of fewer complications.

SUBMITTER: Asil K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4998679 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Retrospective Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of PLIF and TLIF Techniques in Patients Who Underwent Lumbar Spinal Posterior Stabilization.

Asil Kiyasettin K Yaldiz Can C

Medicine 20160401 17

Degenerative disc disease and spinal stenosis lead to various symptoms. Degeneration of facet joints is added to this degenerative process with aging.Seventy-four patients who were admitted to the Spinal Column Outpatient Clinic of the Neurosurgery Department with a diagnosis of degenerative narrow spinal canal and lumbar spondylolisthesis between 2011 and 2013 and who underwent surgery were included in the study.Our study was conducted with 74 patients of whom 73.0% (n = 54) were female and 27. ...[more]

PMID: 27124016

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.MethodsSearches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.ResultsOf a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results.Trial registrationProspero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

Project description:Study designSystematic review.Study rationaleThe surgical treatment of adult degenerative lumbar conditions remains controversial. Conventional techniques include posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A new direct approach known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF(®)) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has been introduced. Objectives?The objective of this article is to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF, at one or more levels with or without instrumentation, versus PLIF or TLIF surgery in adults with lumbar degenerative conditions, and to determine which preoperative factors affect patient outcomes following LLIF surgery.Materials and methodsA systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed and bibliographies of key articles. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality rating scheme.ResultsThe search yielded 258 citations and the following met our inclusion criteria: three retrospective cohort studies (all using historical cohorts) (class of evidence [CoE] III) examining the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF/XLIF(®)/DLIF versus PLIF or TLIF surgery, and one prospective cohort study (CoE II) and two retrospective cohort studies (CoE III) assessing factors affecting patient outcome following LLIF. Patients in the LLIF group experienced less estimated blood loss and a lower mortality risk compared with the PLIF group. The number of levels treated and the preoperative diagnosis were significant predictors of perioperative or early complications in two studies.ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LLIF versus PLIF/TLIF surgery. There is low-quality evidence suggesting that LLIF surgery results in fewer complications or reoperations than PLIF/TLIF surgery. And there is insufficient evidence that any preoperative factors exist that predict patient outcome after LLIF surgery.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although stroke is a rare complication among spinal surgery patients, the recognition of this adverse event is critical given the aging population undergoing surgical procedures. The objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of stroke among selected adults undergoing elective posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) during various post-operative risk windows and among different subgroups. METHODS:A retrospective cohort study using a longitudinal electronic healthcare record (EHR) database was conducted from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2018. Elective PLF, stroke, and select clinical characteristics were defined based on International Classification of Disease codes. Patients aged 18 to 85?years with ?183?days of enrollment in the database prior to undergoing elective PLF were followed from the index date until the occurrence of stroke, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study period, whichever occurred first. The incidence of stroke was estimated in the following risk windows: index hospitalization, ? 30?days, ? 90?days, ? 180?days, and???365?days post-operation. RESULTS:A total of 43,063 patients were eligible for the study. The incidence of stroke following elective PLF was 0.29% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25, 0.35%) during index hospitalization, 0.44% (95% CI: 0.38, 0.50%)???30?days, 0.59% (95% CI: 0.52, 0.67%)???90?days, 0.76% (95% CI: 0.68, 0.85%)???180?days, and 1.12% (95% CI: 1.03, 1.23%)???365?days post-operation. Stratified analyses revealed that older patients had a higher incidence of stroke. Additionally, black patients had higher stroke incidences. Post-operative stroke incidence was higher among patients with a history of type 2 diabetes than among patients without such history; similarly, stroke incidence was higher among patients with a history of stroke compared to patients without such history. CONCLUSIONS:The incidence of stroke following elective PLF using an EHR database in this study is slightly higher than that reported in the literature. Our results suggest that stroke risk modification prior to PLF may be important for patients who are older, black, type 2 diabetic, and/or have a history of stroke.

Project description:Epidural electrical stimulation of the lumbar spinal cord is currently regaining momentum as a neuromodulation intervention in spinal cord injury (SCI) to modify dysregulated sensorimotor functions and augment residual motor capacity. There is ample evidence that it engages spinal circuits through the electrical stimulation of large-to-medium diameter afferent fibers within lumbar and upper sacral posterior roots. Recent pilot studies suggested that the surface electrode-based method of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may produce similar neuromodulatory effects as caused by epidural SCS. Neurophysiological and computer modeling studies proposed that this noninvasive technique stimulates posterior-root fibers as well, likely activating similar input structures to the spinal cord as epidural stimulation. Here, we add a yet missing piece of evidence substantiating this assumption. We conducted in-depth analyses and direct comparisons of the electromyographic (EMG) characteristics of short-latency responses in multiple leg muscles to both stimulation techniques derived from ten individuals with SCI each. Post-activation depression of responses evoked by paired pulses applied either epidurally or transcutaneously confirmed the reflex nature of the responses. The muscle responses to both techniques had the same latencies, EMG peak-to-peak amplitudes, and waveforms, except for smaller responses with shorter onset latencies in the triceps surae muscle group and shorter offsets of the responses in the biceps femoris muscle during epidural stimulation. Responses obtained in three subjects tested with both methods at different time points had near-identical waveforms per muscle group as well as same onset latencies. The present results strongly corroborate the activation of common neural input structures to the lumbar spinal cord-predominantly primary afferent fibers within multiple posterior roots-by both techniques and add to unraveling the basic mechanisms underlying electrical SCS.

Dataset Information

Retrospective Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of PLIF and TLIF Techniques in Patients Who Underwent Lumbar Spinal Posterior Stabilization.

Publications

Retrospective Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of PLIF and TLIF Techniques in Patients Who Underwent Lumbar Spinal Posterior Stabilization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure