Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Author:

Lee Yunsoo1,Heard Jeremy C.1,McCurdy Michael A.1,Lambrechts Mark J.2,Fras Sebastian I.1,Purtill William1,Millar Ben1,Kolowrat Samantha1,Issa Tariq Z.1,D’Antonio Nicholas D.3,Rihn Jeffrey A.1,Kurd Mark F.1,Kaye I. David1,Canseco Jose A.1,Vaccaro Alexander R.1,Hilibrand Alan S.1,Kepler Christopher K.1,Schroeder Gregory D.1

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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3