Posterolateral lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis

Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the optimal surgical fusion approach for lumbar spondylolisthesis, to provide the latest and most reliable evidence for future clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Ovid-Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to September 1, 2023, to identify relevant records. Two independent reviewers performed the literature screening, data extraction, and assessment of study quality.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving 892 patients met the inclusion criteria. The network evidence plot showed that posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were the most used fusion techniques. The network meta-analysis results revealed that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) had a significantly greater improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) compared to endoscopic-TLIF, while PLIF had a significantly better fusion effect than posterolateral fusion. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed between other fusion surgeries in terms of improving ODI, fusion rate, complications, or the improvement of visual analog scale-low back pain. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve results indicated that MIS-TLIF had the greatest potential for improving ODI, visual analog scale-low back pain, and complications, while PLIF had the greatest potential for increasing fusion rates. However, the existing selection bias, measurement bias, reporting bias, and publication bias may have reduced the reliability of the meta-analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the various fusion surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis, MIS-TLIF appears to provide the greatest benefit to patients. However, more high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to further investigate the treatment efficacy of different fusion surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Effect of Lateral Surgery Compared with Posterior Surgery on Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis of 41 Cohort Studies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of the lateral approach and posterior approach in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

Through a systematic search of relevant articles published on or before July 20, 2023, in the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane libraries, the 2 authors independently extracted data and used the Newcastle‒Ottawa scale to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Using Stata16 software, the continuous variables were presented as the standard mean deviation, and the bipartite variables were analyzed using the pooled odds ratio with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 13,892 articles were screened and 10,908 studies were identified after deleting duplicates, of which 41 met the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the lateral approach was superior to the posterior approach in reducing blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay. At the same time, compared with the posterior approach, the lateral approach has more advantages in the long-term Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and Oswestry Disability Index score, adjusting mid- and long-term LL and short- and long-term disc height.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral and posterior surgery have similar clinical effects in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases and can significantly reduce pain and improve postoperative SL. At the same time, the lateral approach has more advantages in improving long-term quality of life, reducing the long-term disability index, adjusting mid- and long-term LL and short- and long-term disc height.

Modified facet joint fusion for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study of 135 consecutive patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of modified facet joint fusion (MFF) for the treatment of multilevel (three-level or more) lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 135 consecutive patients who underwent initial MFF for multilevel LSS were included. Clinical outcomes included fusion rate, change of visual analogue scale pain scores for low back pain (VAS-LBP) and leg pain (VAS-LP), Japanese Orthopedic Association scores (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and MacNab classification before and after MFF. The complications were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The fusion rates were 46.7% (63/135) at 6-month and 89.6% (121/135) at 1-year. The mean VAS-LBP, VAS-LP, and ODI significantly decreased from 5.2 ± 0.6, 5.7 ± 0.8 and 65 ± 7.9 to 1.58 ± 0.4, 0.58 ± 0.3 and 20.8 ± 5.8, respectively (all p < 0.001). The mean JOA markedly improved from 10.0 ± 1.3 to 26.1 ± 1.5 (p < 0.001). Excellent/good results of MacNab classification were achieved in 88.9% (120/135) of the patients. The overall rate of complications after MFF was 5.9%, including poor wound healing (2.2%), calf muscular venous thrombosis (0.74%), deep venous thrombosis (0.74%), superficial wound infection (1.48%), transient foot drop (0.74%). All the complications were transient and improved without prolonged hospital stay and sequelae.

CONCLUSION

MFF may be safe and efficient for multilevel LSS with high fusion rate and significant symptom relief, which is worthy of further study.

Postoperative Opioid Use Following Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To compare postoperative opioid morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescriptions for opioid-naïve patients undergoing single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) and total postoperative MME prescribed based on operative duration.

METHODS

Patients undergoing single-level TLIF or PLF from September 2017 to June 2020 were identified from a single institution. Patients were first grouped based on procedure type (TLIF or PLF) and subsequently regrouped based on median operative duration. Statistical tests compared patient demographics and opioid prescription data between groups. Multivariate regressions were performed to control for demographics, operative time, and procedure type.

RESULTS

Of 345 patients undergoing single-level PLF or TLIF, 174 (50.4%) were opioid-naïve; 101 opioid-naïve patients (58.0%) underwent PLF and 73 (42.0%) underwent TLIF. Patients undergoing TLIF received more opioid prescriptions (1.99 vs. 1.26, P < 0.001) and total MME (91.2 vs. 66.8, P = 0.002). After regrouping patients based on operative duration, independent of procedure type, there were no differences in postoperative opioid prescriptions, and Spearman rank correlation coefficient between total MME and operative duration was r = 0.014. Multivariate analysis identified TLIF as an independent predictor of increased postoperative opioid prescriptions (β = 0.64, P < 0.001), prescribers (β = 0.49, P = 0.003), and MME (β = 24.4, P = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid-naïve patients undergoing single-level TLIF receive a greater number of postoperative opioids than patients undergoing single-level PLF, and TLIF was an independent predictor of increased postoperative opioid prescribers, prescribers, and MME. There were no differences in postoperative opioid prescriptions when assessing patients based on operative duration.

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

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), p = 0.02, I² = 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), p = 0.27, I² = 69.0%]. The estimated RR of total adverse events [RR = 0.90 (95% CI = 0.59–1.38), p = 0.63, I² = 0.0%] was similar to no fusion, PLF, PLIF, and XLIF groups, and revision rate [RR = 0.78 (95% CI = 0.34–1.79), p = 0.56, I² = 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), p = 0.02, I² = 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.

Comparison between modified facet joint fusion and posterolateral fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study

Objective

To investigate the safety and effectiveness of modified facet joint fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases and compare them with those of posterolateral fusion.

Methods

A total of 77 adult patients with lumbar degenerative disease diagnosed from January 2017 to February 2019 were considered for the present retrospective, nonrandomized, and controlled study. The patients were divided into two groups according to the fusion technique used during the surgery: the posterolateral fusion (PLF) group (n = 42) and the modified facet joint fusion (MFF) group (n = 35). The fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for back pain and leg pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, length of hospital stay, length of operation, intraoperative blood loss, cost of hospitalization, complications and reoperations were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

All patients underwent a successful surgery, and all were followed up. No significant differences were found in age, sex, BMI, length of hospital stay, length of operation or cost of hospitalization. There were no significant differences in the preoperative or postoperative ODI or in the VAS, JOA, and EQ-5D scores between the MFF and PLF groups. However, the fusion rate of MFF group was higher than that of the PLF group (P < 0.05). What’s more, the MFF group had less intraoperative blood loss than the PLF group (P < 0.05). Complications related to iatrogenic nerve injury, vascular injury, epidural hematoma, intravertebral infection, and internal fixation did not occur in either group. None of the patients required reoperation.

Conclusions

Modified facet joint fusion is safe and efficient in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. The fusion rate of MFF was higher than PLF. The intraoperative blood loss of MFF was less than that of PLF. In addition, the therapeutic effect of MFF was not worse than that of PLF. Therefore, the MFF technique can be promoted in clinical treatment.

Preoperative Radiographic Prediction Tool for Early Postoperative Segmental and Lumbar Lordosis Alignment After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Objective

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a common approach and results in varying degrees of lordosis correction. The purpose of this study is to determine preoperative radiographic spinopelvic parameters that predict change in postoperative segmental and lumbar lordosis after TLIF.

Materials & Methods

This study is a single surgeon retrospective review of one-level and two-level TLIFs from L3-S1. All patients underwent bilateral facetectomies, 10 mm TLIF cage (non-lordotic) insertions, and bilateral pedicle screw-rod construct placements. Pre- and post-operative X-rays were assessed for preoperative segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence (PI). Univariate and multi-predictor linear regression analyses were performed to determine the relationships between preoperative radiographic findings and change in early postoperative segmental and lumbar lordosis.

Results

Ninety-seven patients contributing 128 intervertebral segments were examined. The mean change in SL after TLIF was 7.3 (range: 0.10-28.9°, SD 6.39°). The mean change in LL after TLIF was 5.5˚ (range: -14.8-39.2°, standard deviation (SD) 7.16°). Greater preoperative LL predicted less postoperative LL correction, while greater preoperative PI predicted more postoperative SL and LL correction. Greater anterior disk height was noted to be associated with a decreased change in SL (∆SL). An annular tear on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) predicted a 2.7° decrease in ∆SL. A Schmorl's node on preoperative MRI predicted a 4.0° decrease in change in LL (∆LL).

Conclusions

A greater preoperative lordosis and a lower spinopelvic mismatch lessen the potential for an increase in the postoperative SL and LL after a TLIF, which is likely due to a ‘ceiling’ effect of an otherwise optimized spinal alignment. A greater anterior disk height and the presence of an annular tear are associated with decreased ∆SL.

Modified Facet Joint Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Case Series of a Fusion Technique, Clinical Outcomes, and Fusion Rate in 491 Patients

BACKGROUND

Controversy still exists regarding the optimal fusion technique for the treatment of unstable lumbar spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of modified facet joint fusion (MFF).

METHODS

A total of 491 patients with unstable lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent MFF were retrospectively reviewed. Computed tomography was used to evaluate the fusion rate of MFF at 6- and 12-mo follow-up postoperatively. Clinical outcomes included visual analog scale pain scores for low back pain (VAS-LBP) and leg pain (VAS-LP), Japanese Orthopedic Association scores (JOA), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), all of which were obtained preoperatively and postoperatively at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up times. The clinical outcomes were determined to be excellent, good, fair, or poor according to the MacNab classification at the last follow-up time.

RESULTS

Of the 491 patients, the fusion rates at the 6-mo and 1-yr follow-up were 56.8% and 96.1%, respectively. Between baseline and 1-yr follow-up time, VAS-LP and VAS-LBP improved from 5.6 ± 0.9 to 0.4 ± 0.5 and 5.1 ± 1.2 to 1.5 ± 0.9, respectively (P < .001). JOA improved from 9.0 ± 2.0 to 27.7 ± 1.0, and ODI decreased from 64.0 ± 2.0 to 19 ± 1.0 (P < .001). At the final evaluation, 93.6% patients showed excellent or good results, and 3.2% showed fair results. There were no MFF technique-related complications.

CONCLUSION

MFF technique achieved satisfactory clinical outcomes and fusion rate and appears to be a promising alternative fusion technique for the treatment of unstable lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Adult Degenerative Scoliosis

Populational aging increases the incidence of musculoskeletal degenerative processes, such as adult scoliosis (AS). Adult scoliosis is defined as a spinal deformity in the coronal plane with a Cobb angle > 10°. Adult scoliosis may be iatrogenic or result from a degenerative process (scoliosis de novo ) or a pre-existing scoliosis.

Adult scoliosis is a potentially limiting condition that affects a heterogeneous group of patients. Clinical treatment proved to be ineffective and surgery is often indicated. The present paper reviews AS pathophysiology, clinical presentation and diagnosis, in addition to surgical indications and the main techniques currently used.

Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented posterolateral versus instrumented posterolateral with transforaminal lumbar interbody single-level fusion

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated by posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) versus PLF with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLF + TLIF). Studies of PLF versus PLF + TLIF have shown either equivalence or support for PLF + TLIF in lumbar spine surgery. Many are heterogeneous in the conditions treated, with few considering only spondylolisthesis of degenerative origin. Radiographic outcomes tend to favor PLF + TLIF, but this has not translated into better clinical outcomes.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study. Forty-nine patients undergoing single-level PLF and seventy patients undergoing single-level PLF + TLIF with two-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), implant cost, surgical data, and complications were analyzed.

Results

There was no difference in ODI improvement at two-year follow-up between the cohorts (P=0.97). Dural tears were more common in the PLF cohort (P<0.01), but otherwise complication and reoperation rates were similar. Implant cost (P<0.01) and operative time (P=0.01) were higher in the PLF + TLIF cohort.

Conclusions

The addition of a TLIF to a PLF did not result in a functional improvement in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis as measured by the ODI.

Posterolateral Versus Transforaminal Interbody L4/5 Fusion: Correlation With Subsequent Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare posterolateral versus transforaminal interbody fusion (PLF vs. PLF+TLIF) of the L4/5 segment regarding rates of subsequent surgery, clinical and radiographic parameters, and patient satisfaction.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis, decompression with or without fusion, is an efficacious treatment in select patients. Reoperation is thought to be a problem after lumbar fusion. Despite multiple studies, the fusion method that minimizes the need for subsequent surgery has yet to be determined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 89 patients who had an isolated L4/5 decompression and fusion, from January 2006 to 2012. All patients had stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis at the L4/5 level. All surgeries were performed at a single center, using either PLF (31 patients) or PLF+TLIF (58 patients) techniques. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry disability index, visual analog scale back pain, visual analog scale leg pain) and radiographic parameters (L4/5 lordosis and overall lumbar lordosis) were measured. Patient satisfaction was acquired via a questionnaire. Chart reviews and patient questionnaires were used to determine the incidence of subsequent lumbar surgery over a minimum follow-up of 5 years.

RESULTS

At an average of 8.7 years follow-up, 2 of 31 patients in the PLF group had subsequent lumbar surgery, compared with 16 of 58 patients in the PLF+TLIF group (6% vs. 28%; P=0.02). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to sex, age, body mass index, tobacco, perioperative measures, patient-reported outcomes, or radiographic parameters (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both PLF and PLF+TLIF are effective fusion methods for L4/5 stenosis and spondylolisthesis. In this study, patients treated with PLF were less likely to undergo a subsequent lumbar surgery. More research is needed to determine which factors influence whether PLF or PLF+TLIF should be used in these patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Degenerative Scoliosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an updated review of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS). Epidemiology, classification, pathophysiology, and natural history are discussed along with a summary of commonly used outcome measures. Operative vs non-operative outcomes and new surgical techniques are discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

The SRS-Schwab classification (2012) combines clinical and radiographic evaluation including overall global alignment. Current evidence regarding risk factors and efficacy of non-surgical modalities are discussed. Recent studies have reported surgical management to provide superior outcomes to non-operative modalities. New surgical techniques provide promising early data in regard to decreasing perioperative morbidity. ADS is a potentially debilitating condition that occurs with asymmetric spinal degeneration. This can produce global sagittal malalignment and central and foraminal stenosis and can lead to significant impairment often necessitating surgery. The surgeon must be aware of the perioperative risks in this population and implement appropriate age-specific alignment goals to achieve the best outcome for patients.