Dataset Information

Is Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion a Safe and Efficacious Treatment for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis of L5-S1?

ABSTRACT:

Study design

A systematic review.

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (sa-ALIF) for the treatment of symptomatic isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1 by assessing the level of available clinical and radiographic evidence.

Methods

A systematic review utilizing Medline, Embase, and Scopus online databases was undertaken. Clinical, radiographic, and adverse outcome data were extracted for the relevant isthmic spondylolisthesis cases with the intention of undertaking a meta-analysis.

Results

The database search between January 1980 and December 2015 yielded 23 articles that concerned sa-ALIF for isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1. Only in 9 of the 23 articles data could be extracted specific to sa-ALIF for isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1. There was considerable inconsistency in the standards for reporting outcomes of the surgery due to which meta-analysis could not be undertaken, and hence each article was reviewed.

Conclusions

There was insufficient evidence to support the safety and efficacy of sa-ALIF for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1. Although sa-ALIF is widely documented in the literature, there was insufficient evidence to support its use in treating this specific pathology. The unique pathological and anatomical situation that isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1 presents must be recognized and its treatment with sa-ALIF should be well thought out.

SUBMITTER: Viglione LL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5582709 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion a Safe and Efficacious Treatment for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis of L5-S1?

Viglione Luke L LL Chamoli Uphar U Diwan Ashish D AD

Global spine journal 20170601 6

<h4>Study design</h4>A systematic review.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (sa-ALIF) for the treatment of symptomatic isthmic spondylolisthesis of L5-S1 by assessing the level of available clinical and radiographic evidence.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review utilizing Medline, Embase, and Scopus online databases was undertaken. Clinical, radiographic, and adverse outcome data were extracted for ...[more]

PMID: 28894689

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (modified MIS-TLIF) versus conventional TLIF in the lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.Materials and methodsForty patients with 1-level lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. Perioperative indexes including operation time, intraoperative bleeding, bed rest time, time of hospitalisation stay and the accuracy rate of screw placement were analysed. Preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed.ResultsThe operation time in the modified MIS-TLIF group was longer than the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss in the modified MIS-TLIF group was less than the comparative group (p < 0.05). The average bed rest time and hospitalisation stay in the modified MIS-TLIF group was shorter than conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). The screw placement in the modified MIS-TLIF group was more precisely than that in the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the improvement of VAS and ODI in the modified MIS-TLIF group were lower than that in the conventional TLIF group 1 and 6 months after operation (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the VAS and ODI score between the two group at the last follow-up (p > 0.05).ConclusionNavigation and microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree I or II) with potential advantages including less injury, less blood loss, higher screw accuracy and faster recovery after operation.The translational potential of this articleCompared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has a huge advantage in surgery treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Hence, this article provided a better surgery method to deal with lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, and robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion will be adopted in the future.

Project description:BackgroundPedicle screw invasion of the proximal articular process will cause local articular process degeneration and acceleration, which is an important factor affecting adjacent segment degeneration. Although lumbar spondylolisthesis is a risk factor for screw invasion of the proximal joint, there is no clear conclusion regarding the two different types of spondylolisthesis. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the influence of pedicle screw placement on proximal facet invasion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis and isthmic spondylolisthesis.MethodsIn total, 468 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis treated by decompression and fusion in our hospital from January 2017 to January 2020 were included in this retrospective study. Among them, 238 cases were degenerative spondylolisthesis (group A), and 230 cases were isthmic spondylolisthesis (group B). Sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, postoperative VAS and ODI scores at 1 month and 3 months, and angle of the proximal facet joint at the last follow-up were recorded and compared between the two groups. The degree of pedicle screw invasion of the proximal facet joint was graded and compared by the SEO grading method.ResultsThere were no significant differences in sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, preoperative VAS and ODI scores, or proximal facet joint angle between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups at 1 month and 3 months after the operation (P > 0.05). The VAS score of group A at the last follow-up was 1 (1,2). The VAS score of group B at the last follow-up was 3 (1,3). The ODI score of group A at the last follow-up was 6(4,26). The ODI score of group B at the last follow-up was 15(8,36). The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups at the last follow-up were significantly different (P < 0.05). According to the SEO grading method, the invasion of the proximal articular process by pedicle screw placement in group A involved 320 cases in grade 0, 128 cases in grade I and 28 cases in grade II. In group B, there were 116 cases in grade 0, 248 cases in grade I and 96 cases in grade II, with a significant difference (P < 0.01).ConclusionIn summary, a certain number of cases involving screws invading the proximal facet joint occurred in the two different types of lumbar spondylolisthesis, but the number in the isthmic spondylolisthesis group was significantly higher than that in the degenerative spondylolisthesis group, which caused more trauma to the proximal facet joint and significantly affected the patient prognosis.

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:BackgroundClinically, there are substantive practice variations in surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. We aimed at evaluating whether decompression alone outcomes for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis are comparable to those of decompression with fusion.MethodsIn this meta-analysis, the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 16th, 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing decompression alone with decompression and fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included in this study. There were no language limitations. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results in the random-effects model. Main outcomes included Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain, clinical satisfaction, complication and reoperation rates. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022310645).FindingsThirty-three studies (6 RCTs and 27 cohort studies) involving 94 953 participants were included. Differences in post-operative ODI between decompression alone and decompression with fusion were not significant. A small difference for back (MD, 0.13; [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.18]; I 2:0.00%) and leg pain (MD, 0.30; [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.51]; I 2:48.35%) was observed on the 3rd post-operative month. The results did not reveal significant differences in leg pain and back pain between decompression alone and fusion groups on the 6th, 12th, and 24th post-operative months. Difference in clinical satisfaction between decompression alone and decompression with fusion were not significant from RCTs (OR, 0.26; [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.92]; I 2:83.27%). Complications (OR, 1.54; [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.05]; I 2:48.88%), operation time (MD, 83.39; [95% CI, 55.93 to 110.85]; I 2:98.75%), intra-operative blood loss (MD, 264.58; [95% CI, 174.99 to 354.16]; I 2:95.61%) and length of hospital stay (MD, 2.85; [95% CI, 1.60 to 4.10]; I 2:99.49%) were higher with fusion.InterpretationClinical effectiveness of decompression alone was comparable to that of decompression with fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Decompression alone is recommended for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.FundingThis work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81871818), Tangdu Hospital Seed Talent Program (Fei-Long Wei), Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (No.2019JM-265) and Social Talent Fund of Tangdu Hospital (No.2021SHRC034).

Dataset Information

Is Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion a Safe and Efficacious Treatment for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis of L5-S1?

Study design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Is Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion a Safe and Efficacious Treatment for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis of L5-S1?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets