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

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion Alone in the Treatment of Grade 1 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone are two operations performed to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. To date, it is unclear which operation leads to better outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TLIF vs PLF alone regarding long-term reoperation rates, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with degenerative grade 1 spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data between October 2010 and May 2021 was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18 years or older with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing elective, single-level, open posterior lumbar decompression and instrumented fusion with ≥1-year follow-up. The primary exposure was presence of TLIF vs PLF without interbody fusion. The primary outcome was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included complications, readmission, discharge disposition, return to work, and PROMs at 3 and 12 months postoperatively, including Numeric Rating Scale-Back/Leg and Oswestry Disability Index. Minimum clinically important difference of PROMs was set at 30% improvement from baseline.

RESULTS

Of 546 patients, 373 (68.3%) underwent TLIF and 173 underwent (31.7%) PLF. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (IQR = 3.6-9.0), with 339 (62.1%) >5-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression showed that patients undergoing TLIF had a lower odds of reoperation compared with PLF alone (odds ratio = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.54-0.99, P = .048). Among patients with >5-year follow-up, the same trend was seen (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.95, P = .045). No differences were observed in 90-day complications ( P = .487) and readmission rates ( P = .230) or minimum clinically important difference PROMs.

CONCLUSION

In a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively maintained registry, patients with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing TLIF had significantly lower long-term reoperation rates than those undergoing PLF.

Use of biphasic calcium phosphate versus demineralized bone matrix: retrospective clinical and CT analysis of posterolateral fusion results

PURPOSE

Bone graft extenders have been developed to prevent donor site morbidity associated with iliac crest bone graft, but few studies compared the efficacy of various substitutes. Our purpose was to determine fusion rate and clinical outcome in patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis using demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP).

METHODS

Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing one-level or two-level arthrodesis of lumbar spine were retrospectively reviewed. Two treatment groups placed either BCP or DBM, in addition to local autograft in lumbar posterolateral space. Three-dimensional CT exam and dynamic flexion-extension radiographs at postoperative 2-year were assessed for posterolateral fusion status and pain scale and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Of the 148 patients reviewed (including 23 in one- and 58 patients in two-level in BCP group, and 47 in one- and 20 patients in two-level in DBM group), no significant differences were found in terms of age, sex, BMI, smoking, diabetes, steroids, number of level fused, non-union rate or revision surgery between BCP and DBM groups. Significantly improved pain scale of back and leg and ODI were found in both groups postoperatively without group difference. We found a comparable fusion rate in one-level surgery (100% versus 93.6%) and a superior fusion rate of BCP group in two-level surgery (98.3% versus 80.0%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Being a bone graft extender without osteoinductive property, with local autograft, BCP is comparable to DBM for one- and superior for two-level fusion. No significant difference was found in clinical outcomes.

Comparison of Functional and Radiological Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterolateral Fusion Techniques in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare posterolateral fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLF + TLIF) and PLF only in terms of revision surgery rates and complications, as well as functional and radiological outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients.

METHODS

Seventy-one patients (37 patients in the PLF + TLIF group and 34 patients in the PLF only group) who underwent surgery due to LSS between January 2013 and December 2016 were retrospectively investigated. Functional evaluation was performed by using the McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scales pre-and postoperatively. Radiological evaluation was made by examining adjacent vertebrae, posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) morphology, and sagittal balance on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

RESULTS

Postoperative MPQ, RMDQ, and ODI scores were significantly better in the PLF + TLIF group (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively). The complication rate was significantly higher in the PLF only group (p = 0.026). In the PLF + TLIF group, postoperative functional scores showed significant improvement in terms of the instrumented segment and level of interbody fusion. Postoperative functional scores showed significant improvement in PLF + TLIF patients with no complications, no revision surgery, no postoperative MRI findings, and neutral sagittal balance compared to the preoperative functional scores (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

PLF + TLIF is significantly superior in terms of functional scores and complications, despite the statistical similarity in terms of postoperative MRI findings and sagittal balance between the groups. Surgeons should prefer PLF + TLIF for the surgical treatment of LSS for better results.