Perioperative adverse events after different fusion approaches for single-level lumbar spondylosis

Do TLIF and PLIF Techniques Differ in Perioperative Complications? - Comparison of Complications Rates of Two High Volume Centers

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective bicentric Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE

Posterior (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have been clinically proven for the surgical treatment of degenerative spinal disorders. Despite many retrospective studies, the superiority of either technique has not been proven to date. In the literature, the complication rate of the conventional PLIF technique is reported to be significantly higher, but with inconsistent complication recording. In this retrospective bicentric study, a less invasive PLIF technique was compared with the conventional TLIF technique and complications were recorded using the validated SAVES V2 classification system.

METHODS

1142 patients underwent PLIF (702) or TLIF (n = 440) up to 3 levels in two specialized centers. Epidemiological data, intra- and postoperative complications during hospitalization and after discharge were analyzed according to SAVES V2.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was 13.74%. TLIF-patients had slightly significant more complications than PLIF-patients (TLIF = 16.6%/PLIF = 11.9%, P = .0338). Accordingly, complications during revision surgeries were more frequent in the first cohort (TLIF = 20.9%/PLIF = 12.6%; P = .03252). In primary interventions, the surgical technique did not correlate with the complication rate (TLIF = 12.4%/PLIF = 11.7%). There were no significant differences regarding severity of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

An important component of this work is the complication recording according to a uniform classification system (SAVES V2). In contrast to previous literature, we could demonstrate that there is not a significant difference between the two surgical techniques.

Assessment of Rod Material Types in Spine Surgery Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spine fusion surgery is traditionally performed with rigid fixation. Because the rigidity is often supraphysiologic, semirigid rods were developed. To the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive evaluation of rod material type on surgical outcomes has yet to be conducted.

METHODS

A systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines was conducted across 3 electronic databases. After examination for inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were extracted from the studies.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies, including 1399 patients, were included in this review. The mean rigid rod fusion rate is 92.2% and 95.5% for semirigid rods (P = 0.129). The mean improvement in back pain was 60.6% in rigid rods and 71.6% in semirigid rods. The improvement in leg pain was 81.9% and 77.2%, respectively. There were no differences in visual analog scale back pain score (P = 0.098), visual analog scale leg pain score (P = 0.136), or in functional improvement between rigid and semirigid rods (P = 0.143). There was no difference (P = 0.209) in the reoperation rate between rigid rods (13.1%) and semirigid rods (6.5%). There was a comparable incidence of adjacent segment disease (3%), screw fracture (1.7%), and wound infection (1.9%) between rod material types.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a moderate level of evidence supporting that surgical intervention results in high fusion rates regardless of rod material type. Surgical intervention improves back pain, leg pain, and function, with neither material type showing clear superiority. There are comparable rates of reoperation, development of adjacent segment disease, development of mechanical complications, and incidence of infection in both rigid and semirigid rods. Further studies regarding rod material type are warranted.