Retrospective Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of PLIF and TLIF Techniques in Patients Who Underwent Lumbar Spinal Posterior Stabilization.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Asil K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4998679 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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]
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.
| S-EPMC7877595 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3969425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are several posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). There is a trend towards performing less invasive surgical procedures, but no multicentre randomized controlled trials have evaluated the relative efficacy of these techniques at short and long-term.Method/designA multicentre randomized controlled trial [the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN study)] including 465 patients aged 18-80 years with neurogenic claudication or radiating pain and MRI findings indicating lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis is performed to compare three posterior decompression techniques: unilateral laminotomy with crossover, bilateral laminotomy and spinous process osteotomy. The primary outcome is change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 2 years postoperatively). Secondary outcomes are change in EQ-5D, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and Numeric Rating Scale for leg-pain and back-pain. Also recorded were Global Perceived Effect score, complications, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate 2 years postoperatively, difference in recurrence of symptoms or postoperative instability, and MRI change in the dural sac area. Further, a 5 and 10 years follow-up is planned with the same outcome measures.DiscussionNewer and less invasive techniques are increasingly favoured in surgery for LSS. This trial will compare the clinical and radiological results of three different techniques, and may contribute to better clinical decision making in the surgical treatment of LSS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT02007083 (November 22, 2013).
| S-EPMC5361830 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.ResultsTotally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.ConclusionMinimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.
| S-EPMC10652640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere have been few studies comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The objective of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys and PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.MethodsOf 96 patients with lumbar degenerative disease included in this retrospectively analysis, 46 were treated with the Dynesys system and 50 underwent PLIF from July 2008 to March 2011. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. We also evaluated the occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD).ResultsThe mean follow-up time in the Dynesys group was 53.6 ± 5.3 months, while that in the PLIF group was 55.2 ± 6.8 months. At the final follow-up, the Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale score were significantly improved in both groups. The range of motion (ROM) of stabilized segments in Dynesys group decreased from 7.1 ± 2.2° to 4.9 ± 2.2° (P < 0.05), while that of in PLIF group decreased from 7.3 ± 2.3° to 0° (P < 0.05). The ROM of the upper segments increased significantly in both groups at the final follow-up, the ROM was higher in the PLIF group. There were significantly more radiographic ASDs in the PLIF group than in the Dynesys group. The incidence of complications was comparable between groups.ConclusionsBoth Dynesys and PLIF can improve the clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease. Compared to PLIF, Dynesys stabilization partially preserves the ROM of the stabilized segments, limits hypermobility in the upper adjacent segment, and may prevent the occurrence of ASD.
| S-EPMC4732666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeFollowing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) up to 40% of people report persistent walking disability. This study aimed to identify pre-operative factors that are predictive of walking ability post-surgery for LSS.MethodsAn observational cohort study was conducted using data from the British Spine Registry (2017-2018) of adults (≥ 50 years) with LSS, who underwent ≤ 2 level posterior lumbar decompression. Patients receiving fixation or who had previous lumbar surgery were excluded. Walking ability was assessed by a single item on the Oswestry Disability Index and dichotomised into poor/good outcome. Multivariable regression models were performed.Results14,485 patients were identified. Pre-operatively 30% patients reported poor walking ability, this decreased to 8% at 12 months follow-up. Predictors associated with poor walking ability at 12 months were: increasing age (≥ 75 years OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07, 2.18), BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.00, 2.30), severity of leg pain (OR 1.10, CI 95% 1.01, 1.21), disability (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01, 1.02) and quality of life (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56, 0.89). Pre-operative maximum walking distance (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05, 1.25) and higher education (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80, 0.96) were associated with reduced risk of poor walking ability at 12 months; p < 0.05. Depression, fear of movement and symptom duration were not associated with risk of poor outcome.ConclusionOlder age, obesity, greater pre-operative pain and disability and lower quality of life are associated with risk of poor walking ability post-operatively. Greater pre-operative walking and higher education are associated with reduced risk of poor walking ability post-operatively. Patients should be counselled on their risk of poor outcome and considered for rehabilitation so that walking and surgical outcomes may be optimised.
| S-EPMC8550110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRestoration of sagittal balance is a crucial consideration in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery and adverse postoperative outcomes are associated with inadequate restoration of sagittal alignment. However, there remains a shortage of substantial evidence regarding the effect of rod curvature on both sagittal spinopelvic radiographic parameters and clinical outcomes.MethodA retrospective case-control study was conducted in this study. Patient demographics (age, gender, height, weight and BMI), surgical characteristics (number of fused levels, surgical time, blood loss and hospital stay) and radiographic parameters (lumbar lordosis [LL], sacral slope [SS], pelvic incidence [PI], pelvic tilt [PT], PI-LL, Cobb angle of fused segments [Cobb], rod curvature [RC], Posterior tangent angle of fused segments [PTA] and RC-PTA) were analyzed.ResultsPatients in the abnormal group had older mean age and suffered more blood loss than those in the normal group. In addition, RC and RC-PTA were significantly lower in the abnormal group compared to the normal group. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that lower age (OR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.89-0.99; P = 0.0187), lower PTA (OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.85-0.96; P = 0.0015) and higher RC (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.20-1.51; P < 0.0001) were related to higher odds of better surgical outcomes. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the ROC curve (AUC) for predicting outcomes of surgery by RC classifier was 0.851 (0.769-0.932).ConclusionsIn patients who underwent PLIF surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, those who had a satisfactory postoperative outcome tended to be younger, had lower blood loss, and higher values of RC and RC-PTA compared to those who had poor recovery and required revision surgery. Additionally, RC was found to be a reliable predictor of postoperative outcomes.
| S-EPMC10111816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Lumbar spinal stenosis most often results from a gradual, degenerative ageing process. Open or wide decompressive laminectomy was formerly the standard treatment. However, in recent years, a growing tendency towards less invasive decompressive procedures has emerged. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of microdecompression with those of open wide laminectomy and posterior stabilization for patients with symptomatic multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis who failed to respond to conservative treatment. Methods:This randomized controlled study was conducted between January 2016 and October 2018. One hundred patients were involved in this study. All these patients suffered from radicular leg pain with MRI features of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis and were treated by conservative treatment of medical treatment and physiotherapy without benefit for 6 months. Those patients were divided into two groups: Group A, 50 microdecompression, and Group B, 50 patients who were treated by open wide laminectomy and posterior stabilization. Both groups of patients were followed up with ODI (Oswestry disability index) and VAS (visual analogue score) for the back and leg pain for one year. Results:The results showed that both groups got significant improvement regarding the Oswestry disability index. Regarding back pain, there was a significant improvement in both groups with better results in group A due to minimal tissue injury as the advantage of the minimal invasive technique. In both groups, there was marked improvement of radicular leg pain postoperatively. Conclusions:Both microdecompression and wide open laminectomy with posterior stabilization were effective in treatment of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis with superior results of microdecompression regarding less back pain postoperatively with less blood loss and soft tissue dissection. Clinical trial number: NCT04087694.
| S-EPMC6885236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveLumbar spinal degenerative disease (LSDD), unresponsive to conservative therapy, is commonly treated by surgical decompression and interbody fusion. Since facet joint incompetence has been suggested as responsible for the entire phenomenon of spinal degeneration, facet stabilization can be considered as an alternative technique to treat symptomatic spinal degenerative disease. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature for studies utilizing lumbar facet joint fixation techniques for LSDD to assess their safety and efficacy.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement, with no limits in terms of date of publication. Demographic data, inclusion criteria, clinical and radiological outcome, frequency of adverse events (AEs), and follow-up time were evaluated.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included with a total of 1577 patients. The techniques used for facet arthrodesis were Goel intra-articular spacers in 21 patients (5.3%), Facet Wedge in 198 patients (15.8%), facet screws fixation techniques in 1062 patients (52.6%), and facet joints arthroplasty in 296 patients (26.3%). Clinical outcomes were assessed through the evaluation of pain relief and improvement in functional outcome. Radiological outcomes were assessed by the evaluation of proper positioning of instrumentation, solid bony fusion rate, and preservation of disk height. AE's mainly observed were pseudoarthrosis, reoperation, instrumentation displacement/malpositioning/migration, neurological impairment, deep vein thrombosis, and infections. The mean follow-up time ranged from 6 months to 11.7 years.ConclusionOur data demonstrate that facet joint arthrodesis appears to be effective in managing LSDD. These findings, however, are limited by the small sample size of patients. Accordingly, larger series are needed before formal recommendations can be made.
| S-EPMC9910129 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to determine the risk factors and develop a nomogram for blood transfusions after posterior lumbar spinal fusion (PSL).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, single-center study based on 885 patients receiving PSL, and data was obtained from May 2015 to September 2019. Univariable and multivariable logistics regression analysis were conducted to identify risk factors for blood transfusion, and a nomogram was constructed to individually evaluate the risk of blood transfusion. Discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness were validated by the receiver operating characteristics (ROC), C-index, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis, respectively. Bootstrapping validation was performed to assess the performance of the model.ResultsOf 885 patients, 885 were enrolled in the final study population, and 289 received blood transfusion. Statistical analyses showed that low preoperative hemoglobin (Hb), longer time to surgery, operative time, levels of fusion > 1, longer surgery duration, and higher total intraoperative blood loss (IBL) were the risk factors for transfusion. The C-index was 0.898 (95% CI 0.847-0.949) in this dataset and 0.895 in bootstrapping validation, respectively. Calibration curve showed satisfied discrimination and calibration of the nomogram. Decision curve analysis (DCA) shown that the nomogram was clinical utility.ConclusionsIn summary, we investigated the relationship between the blood transfusion requirement and predictors: levels of fusion, operative time, time to surgery, total intraoperative EBL, and preoperative Hb level. Our nomogram with a robust performance in the assessment of risk of transfusion can contribute to clinicians in making clinical decision. However, external validation is still needed in the further.
| S-EPMC7798229 | biostudies-literature