Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes between ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF over 2-year follow-up: a comparative study

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

PURPOSE

Screwed anterior lumbar interbody fusion (SALIF) alleviates the need for supplemental posterior fixation leading to reduction of perioperative morbidity. Specifically, elderly and multimorbid patients would benefit from shorter operative time and faster recovery but tend to have low bone mineral density (BMD). The current study aimed to compare loosening, defined as increase of ROM and NZ, of SALIF versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) under cyclic loading in cadaveric spines with reduced BMD.

METHODS

Twelve human spines (L4-S2; 6 male 6 female donors; age 70.6 ± 19.6; trabecular BMD of L5 84.2 ± 24.4 mgHA/cm3, range 51-119 mgHA/cm3) were assigned to two groups. SALIF or TLIF were instrumented at L5/S1. Range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) were assessed before and after axial cyclic loading (0-1150 N, 2000 cycles, 0.5 Hz) in flexion-extension (Flex-Ext), lateral bending, (LB), axial rotation (AR).

RESULTS

ROM of the SALIF specimens increased significantly in all loading directions (p ≤ 0.041), except for left AR (p = 0.053), whereas for TLIF it increased significantly in left LB (p = 0.033) and Flex (p = 0.015). NZ of SALIF showed increase in Flex-Ext and LB, whereas NZ of TLIF did not increase significantly in any motion direction.

CONCLUSIONS

Axial compression loading caused loosening of SALIF in Flex-Ext and LB, but not TLIF at L5/S1 in low BMD specimens. Nevertheless, Post-cyclic ROM and NZ of SALIF is comparable to TLIF. This suggests that, neither construct is optimal for the use in patients with reduced BMD.

Minimally Invasive L4-5 Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Robot-Assisted Single-Position Posterior Fixation: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

We present here a 58-year-old female patient with L4-5 spondylolisthesis, who underwent a minimally invasive L4-5 oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with robot-assisted bilateral posterior instrumented fixation in a single lateral position (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic). There has been interest in detailed video-based descriptions of single-position surgery with lateral approach interbody fusions, either in the prone or lateral decubitus position.1-6 Particularly, the addition of robotics has been shown to help increase overall operating efficiency in the lateral position with reduced case times even with the increased up-front robot setup time.7,8 The OLIF, also known as an anterior-to-psoas approach, allows for single-position posterior fixation and can be very effective at L4-5 where the anatomy of the iliac crest or lumbar plexus does not preclude this surgical corridor the way it could in the transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Clinical outcomes between these 2 lateral approaches have been shown to be very good,9 and OLIF has reduced blood loss while still restoring alignment parameters compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion, with better fusion and reduced subsidence compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.10,11 To our knowledge, this is the first video demonstrating a view of the OLIF approach through a high-definition retractor-based camera (MaxView Camera, Viseon Inc). There is no identifying patient information in this video. The participants and any identifiable individuals consented to publication of his/her image, and the patient consented to the procedure.

Moderate sagittal plane deformity patients have similar radiographic and functional outcomes with either anterior or posterior surgery

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes of two surgical interventions for adult spinal deformity (ASD): anterior lumbar interbody fusion with anterior column realignment (ALIF-ACR) and posterior approach using Smith-Peterson osteotomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation (TLIF-Schwab2).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study included 61 ASD patients treated surgically between 2019 and 2020 at a single tertiary orthopedic specialty hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (ALIF-ACR, 29 patients) and Group 2 (TLIF-Schwab2, 32 patients). Spinopelvic radiographic parameters and functional outcomes were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery.

RESULTS

Perioperative outcomes favored the ALIF-ACR group, with significantly smaller blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and operative time. Radiographic and functional outcomes were similar for both groups; however, the ALIF-ACR group did have a greater degree of correction in lumbar lordosis at 12 months. Complication profiles varied, with the ALIF-ACR group experiencing mostly hardware-related complications, while the TLIF-Schwab2 group faced dural tears, wound dehiscence, and proximal junctional kyphosis. Both groups had similar revision rates.

CONCLUSION

Both ALIF-ACR and TLIF-Schwab2 achieved similar radiographic and functional outcomes in ASD patients with moderate sagittal plane deformity at 1-year follow-up. However, the safety profiles of the two techniques differed. Further research is required to optimize patient selection for each surgical approach, aiming to minimize perioperative complications and reoperation rates in this challenging patient population.