Affiliation:
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA
3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA
Abstract
Study Design.
Retrospective Cohort Study.
Objective.
To compare outcomes in anteriorly placed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) and anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs).
Summary of Background Data.
TLIF and ALIF are surgical techniques that have become more prevalent in recent years. Although studies have compared the two, none have considered TLIFs with anteriorly placed cages, which may serve as a better comparison to ALIFs.
Materials and Methods.
Patients undergoing TLIF or ALIF with posterior instrumentation from 2010-2020 at a tertiary care institution were retrospectively identified. TLIF cage position was assessed and those with anterior placement were included. Electronic medical records were reviewed to identify patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes. Radiographic outcomes included posterior disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). Statistical analysis was performed to compare the two groups.
Results.
Of the 351 patients, 108 had ALIF with posterior instrumentation and 207 had a TLIF. Preoperatively, TLIF patients had less LL (53.7° vs. 60.6°, P<0.001), SS (38.3° vs. 43.7°, P<0.001), and PI (60.1° vs. 66.1°, P<0.001), all of which remained significant at one-year and long-term follow-up (P<0.001). The TLIF group had less ∆DH (1.51° vs. 5.43°, P<0.001), ∆LL (1.8° vs. 2.97°, P=0.038), and ∆SL (0.18° vs. 4.40°, P<0.001) at one year postoperatively. At two to three years, ∆DH (P<0.001) and ∆SL (P=0.001) remained significant, but ∆LL (P=0.695) did not. Patients in the TLIF group had higher VAS-Back scores one year postoperatively (3.68 vs. 2.16, P=0.008) and experienced less improvement in ODI (−17.1 vs. −28.6, P=0.012) and VAS-Back (−2.67 vs. −4.50, P=0.008) compared to ALIF patients.
Conclusions.
Our findings suggest that ALIF with posterior instrumentation performed superiorly in radiographic outcomes and PROMs compared to anteriorly placed TLIFs. Anteriorly placed TLIF cages may not achieve the same results as those of ALIF cages.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Subject
Neurology (clinical),Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Spine;Bone & Joint 360;2024-02-01