Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF Vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview

Journal Front Surg

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2022 Apr 1

PMID 35360425

Authors

Kanthika Wasinpongwanich

Tanawin Nopsopon

Krit Pongpirul

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases.

Design: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2013 through December 2019.

Eligibility Criteria For Selecting Studies: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral fusion (PLF) and/or other lumbar interbody fusion were included for the review.

Data Extraction And Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval of fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complications in TLIF and other techniques for lumbar spinal diseases.

Results: Of 3,682 potential studies, 15 RCTs (915 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to other surgical techniques, TLIF had slightly lower fusion rate [RR = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.72-0.97), = 0.02, = 0.0%] at 1-year follow-up whereas there was no difference on fusion rate at 2-year follow-up [RR = 1.06 (95% CI = 0.96-1.18), = 0.27, = 69.0%]. The estimated RR of total adverse events [RR = 0.90 (95% CI = 0.59-1.38), = 0.63, = 0.0%] was similar to no fusion, PLF, PLIF, and XLIF groups, and revision rate [RR = 0.78 (95% CI = 0.34-1.79), = 0.56, = 39.0%] was similar to PLF and XLIF groups. TLIF had approximately half an hour more operative time than other techniques (no fusion, ALIF, PLF, PLIF, XLIF) [MD = 31.88 (95% CI = 5.33-58.44), = 0.02, = 92.0%]. There was no significant difference between TLIF and other techniques in terms of blood loss (no fusion, PLIF, PLF) and clinical outcomes (PLF).

Conclusions: Besides fusion rate at 1-year follow-up and operative time, TLIF has a similar fusion rate, clinical outcomes, parameters concerning operation and complications to no fusion, PLF, and other interbody fusion (PLIF, ALIF, XLIF).

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020186858.

Citing Articles

Clinical and radiological outcomes of titanium cage versus polyetheretherketone cage in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang H, Zhang H, Xiao C, Zhang K, Qi L Neurosurg Rev. 2025; 48(1):295.

PMID: 40075000 DOI: 10.1007/s10143-025-03453-w.

A New Neuroanesthetic Protocol of Rendering Specialized Care in Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases in High-Risk Patients: Prospective Analysis of the Results.

Kalinin A, Goloborodko V, Pestryakov Y, Kundubayev R, Biryuchkov M, Shchegolev A Sovrem Tekhnologii Med. 2024; 16(3):51-59.

PMID: 39650272 PMC: 11618530. DOI: 10.17691/stm2024.16.3.06.

Cyclic testing of standalone ALIF versus TLIF in lumbosacral spines of low bone mineral density: an ex vivo biomechanical study.

Jacob A, Heumann M, Zderic I, Varga P, Ion N, Bocea B Eur Spine J. 2024; 33(9):3443-3451.

PMID: 39017731 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-024-08391-7.

Management of lumbar spondylolisthesis: A retrospective analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Encarnacion-Santos D, Nurmukhametov R, Donasov M, Volovich A, Bozkurt I, Wellington J J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2024; 15(1):99-104.

PMID: 38644921 PMC: 11029118. DOI: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_74_23.

Does indirect decompression by oblique lateral interbody fusion produce similar clinical and radiological outcomes to direct decompression by open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Sahoo A, Jain M, Naik S, Das G, Kumar P, Tripathy S J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2024; 15(1):53-61.

PMID: 38476434 PMC: 10927064. DOI: 10.25259/JNRP_322_2023.

References

Jalalpour K, Neumann P, Johansson C, Hedlund R . A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Uninstrumented Posterolateral Fusion in the Degenerative Lumbar Spine. Global Spine J. 2015; 5(4):322-8. PMC: 4516755. DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1549033. View

Etemadifar M, Hadi A, Masouleh M . Posterolateral instrumented fusion with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: A randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2016; 7(1):43-9. PMC: 4790148. DOI: 10.4103/0974-8237.176623. View

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2011; 3(3):e123-30. PMC: 3090117. View

Christensen A, Hoy K, Bunger C, Helmig P, Hansen E, Andersen T . Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation along side an RCT with a 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23(5):1137-43. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3238-6. View

Manzur M, Steinhaus M, Virk S, Jivanelli B, Vaishnav A, McAnany S . Fusion rate for stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Spine J. 2020; 20(11):1816-1825. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.06.006. View

Phillips F, Slosar P, Youssef J, Andersson G, Papatheofanis F . Lumbar spine fusion for chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(7):E409-22. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182877f11. View

Sembrano J, Tohmeh A, Isaacs R . Two-year Comparative Outcomes of MIS Lateral and MIS Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Part I: Clinical Findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41 Suppl 8:S123-32. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001471. View

Hoy K, Truong K, Andersen T, Bunger C . Addition of TLIF does not improve outcome over standard posterior instrumented fusion. 5-10 years long-term Follow-up: results from a RCT. Eur Spine J. 2016; 26(3):658-665. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4592-3. View

Sterne J, Savovic J, Page M, Elbers R, Blencowe N, Boutron I . RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366:l4898. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. View

10.

Harms J, Rolinger H . [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982; 120(3):343-7. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1051624. View

11.

Sulaiman W, Singh M . Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Ochsner J. 2014; 14(1):32-7. PMC: 3963049. View

12.

Lan T, Hu S, Zhang Y, Zheng Y, Zhang R, Shen Z . Comparison Between Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018; 112:86-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.021. View

13.

Hoy K, Bunger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen E, Li H . Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(9):2022-9. PMC: 3777065. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2760-2. View

14.

Teng I, Han J, Phan K, Mobbs R . A meta-analysis comparing ALIF, PLIF, TLIF and LLIF. J Clin Neurosci. 2017; 44:11-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.06.013. View

15.

Putzier M, Hartwig T, Hoff E, Streitparth F, Strube P . Minimally invasive TLIF leads to increased muscle sparing of the multifidus muscle but not the longissimus muscle compared with conventional PLIF-a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine J. 2015; 16(7):811-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.460. View

16.

Challier V, Boissiere L, Obeid I, Vital J, Castelain J, Benard A . One-Level Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Posterior Approach: Is Transforaminal Lateral Interbody Fusion Mandatory?: A Randomized Controlled Trial With 2-Year Follow-Up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 42(8):531-539. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001857. View

17.

Li F, Chen Q, Chen W, Xu K, Wu Q, Chen G . Posterolateral lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis. J Clin Neurosci. 2013; 20(9):1241-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2012.10.031. View

18.

Joseph J, Smith B, La Marca F, Park P . Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2015; 39(4):E4. DOI: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15278. View

19.

Zhang B, Ge C, Zheng B, Hao D . Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylosis: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(40):e4995. PMC: 5059060. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004995. View

20.

Phan K, Thayaparan G, Mobbs R . Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion--systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg. 2015; 29(5):705-11. DOI: 10.3109/02688697.2015.1036838. View