The periumbilical incision for anterior lumbar interbody fusions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Abdoli S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7371723 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLumbar interbody fusion is among the most common types of spinal surgery performed. Over time, the term has evolved to encompass a number of different approaches to the intervertebral space, as well as differing implant materials. Questions remain over which approaches and materials are best for achieving fusion and restoring disc height.Questions/purposesWe reviewed the literature on the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and devices used to achieve and augment fusion between the disc spaces in the lumbar spine.MethodsUsing search terms specific to lumbar interbody fusion, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar and identified 4993 articles. We excluded those that did not report clinical outcomes, involved cervical interbody devices, were animal studies, or were not in English. After exclusions, 68 articles were included for review.ResultsPosterior approaches have advantages, such as providing 360° support through a single incision, but can result in retraction injury and do not always restore lordosis or correct deformity. Anterior approaches allow for the largest implants and good correction of deformities but can result in vascular, urinary, psoas muscle, or lumbar plexus injury and may require a second posterior procedure to supplement fixation. Titanium cages produce improved osteointegration and fusion rates but also increase subsidence caused by the stiffness of titanium relative to bone. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has an elasticity closer to that of bone and shows less subsidence than titanium cages, but as an inert compound PEEK results in lower fusion rates and greater osteolysis. Combination PEEK-titanium coating has not yet achieved better results. Expandable cages were developed to increase disc height and restore lumbar lordosis, but the data on their effectiveness have been inconclusive. Three-dimensionally (3D)-printed cages have shown promise in biomechanical and animal studies at increasing fusion rates and reducing subsidence, but additive manufacturing options are still in their infancy and require more investigation.ConclusionsAll of the approaches to spinal fusion have plusses and minuses that must be considered when determining which to use, and newer-technology implants, such as PEEK with titanium coating, expandable, and 3D-printed cages, have tried to improve upon the limitations of existing grafts but require further study.
| S-EPMC7253570 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim To compare anterior fusion in standalone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using cage and screw constructs and anterior cage-alone constructs with posterior pedicle screw supplementation but without posterior fusion. Methods Eighty-five patients underwent single- or two-level ALIF procedure for degenerative disk disease or lytic spondylolisthesis (SPL). Posterior instrumentation was performed without posterior fusion in all cases of lytic SPL and when the anterior cage used did not have anterior screw through cage fixation. Results Seventy (82%) patients had adequate radiological follow-up at a mean of 19 months. Forty patients had anterior surgery alone (24 single level and 16 two levels) and 30 had front-back surgery (15 single level and 15 two levels). Anterior locked pseudarthrosis was only seen in the anterior surgery-alone group when using the STALIF cage (Surgicraft, Worcestershire, UK) (37 patients). This occurred in five of the single-level surgeries (5/22) and nine of the two-level surgeries (9/15). Fusion was achieved in 100% of the front-back group and only 65% (26/40) of the anterior surgery-alone group. Conclusion Posterior pedicle screw supplementation without posterolateral fusion improves the fusion rate of ALIF when using anterior cage and screw constructs. We would recommend supplementary posterior fixation especially in cases where more than one level is being operated.
| S-EPMC3864421 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background:Comparison of single-level open and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (O-TLIF and MI-TLIF) of a single surgeon and presentation of his MI-TLIF learning curve in a retrospective observational cohort study. Methods:27 MI-TLIF and 31 O-TLIF patients, performed between 03/01/2013 and 03/31/2018, were compared regarding the operative time, blood loss, blood transfusion frequency, postoperative length of stay (LOS), and adverse events. An overall comparison of pre- and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) results and Visual Analog Score (VAS) results of low back and leg pain was performed in the case of the two techniques. For a learning curve presentation, the MI-TLIF cases were compared and the optimal operative time was determined. Results:The gender ratio and age did not differ in the groups. Operative time showed no difference (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (p=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2?±?33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160?±?33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (. Conclusions:Similar operative time and postoperative quality of life improvement can be achieved by MI-TLIF procedure as with O-TLIF, and additionally LOS and blood loss can be reduced. When comparing parameters, MI-TLIF can be an alternative option for O-TLIF with a similar complication profile. The learning curve of MI-TLIF can be steep, although it depends on the circumstances.
| S-EPMC7003267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study Design Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected observational data. Objective To assess the safety and efficacy of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) as a salvage option for lumbar pseudarthrosis following failed posterior lumbar fusion surgery. Methods From 2009 to 2013, patient outcome data was collected prospectively over 5 years from 327 patients undergoing ALIF performed by a single surgeon (R.J.M.) with 478 levels performed. Among these, there were 20 cases of failed prior posterior fusion that subsequently underwent ALIF. Visual analog score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form 12-item health survey (SF-12) were measured pre- and postoperatively. The verification of fusion was determined by utilizing a fine-cut computed tomography scan at 12-month follow-up. Results There was a significant difference between the preoperative (7.25 ± 0.8) and postoperative (3.1 ± 2.1) VAS scores (p < 0.0001). The ODI scale also demonstrated a statistically significant reduction from preoperative (56.3 ± 16.5) and postoperative (30.4 ± 19.3) scores (p < 0.0001). The SF-12 scores were significantly improved after ALIF salvage surgery: Physical Health Composite Score (32.18 ± 5.5 versus 41.07 ± 9.67, p = 0.0003) and Mental Health Composite Score (36.62 ± 12.25 versus 50.89 ± 10.86, p = 0.0001). Overall, 19 patients (95%) achieved successful fusion. Conclusions Overall, our results suggest that the ALIF procedure results not only in radiographic improvements in bony fusion but in significant improvements in the patient's physical and mental experience of pain secondary to lumbar pseudarthrosis. Future multicenter registry studies and randomized controlled trials should be conducted to confirm the long-term benefit of ALIF as a salvage option for failed posterior lumbar fusion.
| S-EPMC4733375 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.ResultsSeven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).ConclusionsThe above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42020201903 .
| S-EPMC8449429 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe previous studies agree that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has better function outcomes, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, when compared to open-TLIF. However, there are no significance differences on operative time, complication, and reoperation rate between the two procedures. This could be from less relative literatures and lower grade evidence. The further meta-analysis is needed with more and higher grade evidences to compare the above two TLIF procedures.MethodsProspective and retrospective studies that compared open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP database (the literature search comprised Medical Subject Heading terms and key words or Emtree term). The retrieval time ranged from the date when the database was founded to January 2015. Pooled risk ratios (RR s) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the clinical outcomes and perioperative data.ResultsTwenty-four studies (n = 1967 patients) were included in this review (n = 951, open-TLIF, n = 1016, MIS-TLIF). MIS-TLIF was associated with a significant decrease in the visual analog score (VAS)-back pain score (WMD = -0.44; P = 0.001), Oswestry Disabilities Index (WMD = -1.57; P = 0.005), early ambulation (WMD = -1.77; P = 0.0001), less blood loss (WMD = -265.59; P < 0.00001), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.89; P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the fusion rate (RR = 0.99; P = 0.34), VAS-leg pain (WMD = -0.10; P = 0.26), complication rate (RR = 0.84; P = 0.35), operation time (WMD = -5.23; P = 0.82), or reoperation rate (RR = 0.73; P = 0.32).ConclusionsMIS-TLIF resulted in a similar fusion rate with better functional outcome, less blood loss, shorter ambulation, and hospital stay; furthermore, it did not increase the complication or reoperation rate based on the existing evidence.
| S-EPMC4989430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Degenerative lumbar spine disease (DLSD) is a heterogenous group of conditions that can significantly affect patients' quality of life. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is one of the treatment modalities for DLSD that has been increasing in popularity over the past decade. The treatment of DLSD should be individualized based on patients' symptoms and characteristics to maximize outcomes. Methods:Literature review, invited review. Results:In this article, we will (1) review the use of the LLIF technique in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease, (2) review the current concepts of LLIF, and (3) explore the evidence to date that will allow the reader to maximize the benefits of this technique. Conclusions:LLIF is an alternative for the treatment of degenerative pathologies of the lumbar spine via indirect decompression.
| S-EPMC7263327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study designA systematic review.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThere 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.
| S-EPMC5582709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and imaging results of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PETLIF) through comparing it with minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MISTLIF).Materials and methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis on patients with lumbar degenerative disease treated by PETLIF or MISTLIF from September 2017 to January 2019, and the patients were divided into two groups: the PETLIF group and the MISTLIF group. The clinical and imaging parameters of the two groups were evaluated.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups in operative time and complication rate. The estimated blood loss and the length of hospital stay in the PETLIF group were significantly better than those in the MISTLIF group. Compared with those before operation, the postoperative VAS-L and VAS-B scores were significantly improved after operation in the both groups. In addition, the postoperative VAS-B score of the PETLIF group was significantly lower than that of the MISTLIF group. At the last follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the VAS-L score, VAS-B score, ODI score, and bony fusion rate.ConclusionsBoth PETLIF and MISTLIF could achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease, but our study suggested that PETLIF had less damage, rapid recovery after operation, and short discharge time.
| S-EPMC8626985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The authors performed a retrospective controlled study of patients diagnosed with lumbar degenerative disc disease who received surgical intervention (either total disc replacement [TDR]/Activ-L or anterior lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF]) at a single tertiary-care hospital from 2007-2010.To investigate the clinical outcomes after TDR in comparison with ALIF for surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).Analyzed data included intra-operative blood loss, time to return to work, and clinical outcomes as evaluated through the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain questionnaires pre-operatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperative follow-up.At the univariate analysis, patients submitted to TDR presented significantly lower VAS pain scores than patients who received ALIF starting at 6 weeks (P < .001) and continuing through one year postoperatively (P = .007). Patients submitted to TDR also presented significantly lower ODI disability scores at all time points. There was a significant difference in the number of days to return to work, with TDR patients returning to work on average 65 days sooner than ALIF patients (P = .011). There was no significant difference in the total blood loss between both groups.The results of this retrospective controlled study suggest that, in comparison with patients submitted to ALIF, patients submitted to TDR present quicker return to work, less back pain, and lower disability scores at 1 year follow-up.
| S-EPMC5544164 | biostudies-other