TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Outcomes of Anterior, Posterior, and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery at a Single Lumbar Level with Degenerative Spinal Disease
AU - Lee, Nam
AU - Kim, Keung Nyun
AU - Yi, Seong
AU - Ha, Yoon
AU - Shin, Dong Ah
AU - Yoon, Do Heum
AU - Kim, Keun Su
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2017/5/1
Y1 - 2017/5/1
N2 - Objective The fusion rate in spinal surgery may vary in relation to the technique, and it remains unknown which surgical technique provides the best fusion rate and surgical outcome. We aimed to compare radiologic and surgical results between 3 surgical techniques used for lumbar interbody fusion. Methods Participants included 77 patients diagnosed with degenerative spinal stenosis including spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to surgical technique: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF, n = 26), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF, n = 21), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, n = 30). Various radiologic parameters were measured, including fusion rates. Results Significant changes after surgery were observed in the ALIF group for the percentage of vertebral body slippage, anterior disk height, posterior disk height, and segmental range of movement (ROM). The fusion rate on computed tomography (CT) scan at the final follow-up was 69.2% in the ALIF group, 72.7% in the TLIF group, and 64.3% in the PLIF group. The cage subsidence rate 2 years after surgery was 15.4% in the ALIF group, 38.1% in the TLIF group, and 10% in the PLIF group. Conclusions ALIF was associated with better restoration of segmental lordosis. The fusion rate on CT scan and with segmental ROM did not differ between the 3 groups. TLIF was associated with a better postoperative visual analog scale. PLIF showed the lowest cage subsidence rate. Therefore, it is difficult to know which surgical technique is better among the 3 groups because each surgical method has its own advantages.
AB - Objective The fusion rate in spinal surgery may vary in relation to the technique, and it remains unknown which surgical technique provides the best fusion rate and surgical outcome. We aimed to compare radiologic and surgical results between 3 surgical techniques used for lumbar interbody fusion. Methods Participants included 77 patients diagnosed with degenerative spinal stenosis including spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to surgical technique: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF, n = 26), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF, n = 21), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, n = 30). Various radiologic parameters were measured, including fusion rates. Results Significant changes after surgery were observed in the ALIF group for the percentage of vertebral body slippage, anterior disk height, posterior disk height, and segmental range of movement (ROM). The fusion rate on computed tomography (CT) scan at the final follow-up was 69.2% in the ALIF group, 72.7% in the TLIF group, and 64.3% in the PLIF group. The cage subsidence rate 2 years after surgery was 15.4% in the ALIF group, 38.1% in the TLIF group, and 10% in the PLIF group. Conclusions ALIF was associated with better restoration of segmental lordosis. The fusion rate on CT scan and with segmental ROM did not differ between the 3 groups. TLIF was associated with a better postoperative visual analog scale. PLIF showed the lowest cage subsidence rate. Therefore, it is difficult to know which surgical technique is better among the 3 groups because each surgical method has its own advantages.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015860166&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85015860166&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.01.114
DO - 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.01.114
M3 - Article
C2 - 28189865
AN - SCOPUS:85015860166
SN - 1878-8750
VL - 101
SP - 216
EP - 226
JO - World Neurosurgery
JF - World Neurosurgery
ER -