» Articles » PMID: 19125304

Clinical and Radiological Outcome of Anterior-posterior Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Symptomatic Disc Degeneration: a Retrospective Comparative Study of 133 Patients

Overview
Journal Eur Spine J
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2009 Jan 7
PMID 19125304
Citations 33
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Abundant data are available for direct anterior/posterior spine fusion (APF) and some for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), but only few studies from one institution compares the two techniques. One-hundred and thirty-three patients were retrospectively analyzed, 68 having APF and 65 having TLIF. All patients had symptomatic disc degeneration of the lumbar spine. Only those with one or two-level surgeries were included. Clinical chart and radiologic reviews were done, fusion solidity assessed, and functional outcomes determined by pre- and postoperative SF-36 and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and a satisfaction questionnaire. The minimum follow-up was 24 months. The mean operating room time and hospital length of stay were less in the TLIF group. The blood loss was slightly less in the TLIF group (409 vs. 480 cc.). Intra-operative complications were higher in the APF group, mostly due to vein lacerations in the anterior retroperitoneal approach. Postoperative complications were higher in the TLIF group due to graft material extruding against the nerve root or wound drainage. The pseudarthrosis rate was statistically equal (APF 17.6% and TLIF 23.1%) and was higher than most published reports. Significant improvements were noted in both groups for the SF-36 questionnaires. The mean ODI scores at follow-up were 33.5 for the APF and 39.5 for the TLIF group. The patient satisfaction rate was equal for the two groups.

Citing Articles

Surgical Outcomes of Adults with Spinal Caries from 1992 to 2019: A Single-Center Study-Risk Factors for the Progression of Kyphosis after Anterior Spinal Fixation Reveal Cases Needing Additional Posterior Instrumentation.

Furukawa M, Fujiyoshi K, Kitagawa T, Shibata R, Hashimoto S, Kobayashi Y J Clin Med. 2024; 13(13).

PMID: 38999369 PMC: 11242290. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13133803.


Comparison of Lumbosacral Fusion Grade in Patients after Transforaminal and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.

Liu J, Xie R, Chin C, Rajagopalan P, Duan P, Li B Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(9):2334-2341.

PMID: 37526121 PMC: 10475659. DOI: 10.1111/os.13812.


Full-Endoscopic Removal of Migrated and Pseudoarthrotic Lumbar Interbody Cages: Case Reports and Technical Note.

Morgenstern C, Morgenstern R Int J Spine Surg. 2023; 17(3):370-379.

PMID: 37127357 PMC: 10312193. DOI: 10.14444/8451.


Revision for cage migration after transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion: how to perform revision surgery?.

Tanaka M, Wei Z, Kanamaru A, Masuda S, Fujiwara Y, Uotani K BMC Surg. 2022; 22(1):172.

PMID: 35546229 PMC: 9092779. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-022-01620-0.


Implications of sagittal alignment and complication profile with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior posterior lumbar fusion.

Ahlquist S, Thommen R, Park H, Sheppard W, James K, Lord E J Spine Surg. 2021; 6(4):659-669.

PMID: 33447668 PMC: 7797796. DOI: 10.21037/jss-20-595.


References
1.
Brox J, Sorensen R, Friis A, Nygaard O, Indahl A, Keller A . Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(17):1913-21. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000083234.62751.7A. View

2.
Villavicencio A, Burneikiene S, Bulsara K, Thramann J . Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006; 19(2):92-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000185277.14484.4e. View

3.
Humphreys S, Hodges S, Patwardhan A, Eck J, Murphy R, Covington L . Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(5):567-71. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023. View

4.
Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T, Tamura Y, Chiba M, Sato K . Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999; 70(4):329-34. DOI: 10.3109/17453679908997819. View

5.
Fraser R . Interbody, posterior, and combined lumbar fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20(24 Suppl):167S-177S. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199512151-00016. View