Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Outcomes of Multi-Level Anterior, Oblique, Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery : Impact on Global Sagittal Alignment

  • Jiwon, Yoon (Department of Neurosurgery, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine) ;
  • Ho Yong, Choi (Department of Neurosurgery, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine) ;
  • Dae Jean, Jo (Department of Neurosurgery, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2022.05.15
  • Accepted : 2022.08.19
  • Published : 2023.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : To compare the outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in terms of global sagittal alignment. Methods : From January 2007 to December 2019, 141 adult patients who underwent multilevel interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders were enrolled. Regarding the approach, patients were divided into the ALIF (n=23), OLIF (n=60), and TLIF (n=58) groups. Outcomes, including local radiographic parameters and global sagittal alignment, were then compared between the treatment groups. Results : Regarding local radiographic parameters, ALIF and OLIF were superior to TLIF in terms of the change in the anterior disc height (7.6±4.5 mm vs. 6.9±3.2 mm vs. 4.7±2.9 mm, p<0.001), disc angle (-10.0°±6.3° vs. -9.2°±5.2° vs. -5.1°±5.1°, p<0.001), and fused segment lordosis (-14.5°±11.3° vs. -13.8°±7.5° vs. -7.4°±9.1°, p<0.001). However, regarding global sagittal alignment, postoperative lumbar lordosis (-42.5°±9.6° vs. -44.4°±11.6° vs. -40.6°±12.3°, p=0.210), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (7.9°±11.3° vs. 6.7°±11.6° vs. 11.5°±13.0°, p=0.089), and the sagittal vertical axis (24.3±28.5 mm vs. 24.5±34.0 mm vs. 25.2±36.6 mm, p=0.990) did not differ between the groups. Conclusion : Although the anterior approaches were superior in terms of local radiographic parameters, TLIF achieved adequate global sagittal alignment, comparable to the anterior approaches.

Keywords

References

  1. Champagne PO, Walsh C, Diabira J, Plante ME, Wang Z, Boubez G, et al. : Sagittal balance correction following lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of the three approaches. Asian Spine J 13 : 450-458, 2019 https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.0128
  2. Chung HW, Lee HD, Jeon CH, Chung NS : Comparison of surgical outcomes between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Clin Neurol Neurosurg 209 : 106901, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106901
  3. Han SH, Hyun SJ, Jahng TA, Kim KJ : A comparative radiographic analysis of fusion rate between L4-5 and L5-S1 in a single level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Korean J Spine 12 : 60-67, 2015 https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2015.12.2.60
  4. Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O'Shaughnessy BA, Sugrue P, Salehi S, Ondra S, et al. : Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine 7 : 379-386, 2007 https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/10/379
  5. Hyun SJ, Yoon SH, Kim JH, Oh JK, Lee CH, Shin JJ, et al. : A prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the synthetic bone graft material DBM gel with rhBMP-2 versus DBM gel used during the TLIF procedure in patients with lumbar disc disease. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 64 : 562-574, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2020.0331
  6. Jo DJ, Seo EM : Efficacy and radiographic analysis of oblique lumbar interbody fusion in treating adult spinal deformity. PLoS One 16 : e0257316, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257316
  7. Koike Y, Kotani Y, Terao H, Iwasaki N : Comparison of outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous posterior fixation in lateral position and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine J 15 : 97-106, 2021 https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2019.0342
  8. Kono Y, Gen H, Sakuma Y, Koshika Y : Comparison of clinical and radiologic results of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and extreme lateral interbody fusion indirect decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine J 12 : 356-364, 2018 https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2018.12.2.356
  9. Lee N, Kim KN, Yi S, Ha Y, Shin DA, Yoon DH, et al. : Comparison of outcomes of anterior, posterior, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery at a single lumbar level with degenerative spinal disease. World Neurosurg 101 : 216-226, 2017
  10. Li R, Shao X, Li X, Liu Y, Jiang W : Comparison of clinical outcomes and spino-pelvic sagittal balance in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Medicine (Baltimore) 100 : e23783, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000023783
  11. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ : Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 1 : 2-18, 2015
  12. Moses ZB, Razvi S, Oh SY, Platt A, Keegan KC, Hamati F, et al. : A retrospective comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes in single-level degenerative lumbar disease undergoing anterior versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spine Surg 7 : 170-180, 2021 https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-20-673
  13. Nakashima H, Kanemura T, Satake K, Ishikawa Y, Ouchida J, Segi N, et al. : Changes in sagittal alignment following short-level lumbar interbody fusion: comparison between posterior and lateral lumbar interbody fusions. Asian Spine J 13 : 904-912, 2019 https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2019.0011
  14. Patel DV, Yoo JS, Karmarkar SS, Lamoutte EH, Singh K : Interbody options in lumbar fusion. J Spine Surg 5(Suppl 1) : S19-S24, 2019 https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.04.04
  15. Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Mobbs RJ : Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion--systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg 29 : 705-711, 2015 https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2015.1036838
  16. Potter BK, Lenke LG, Kuklo TR : Prevention and management of iatrogenic flatback deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86 : 1793-1808, 2004 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200408000-00027
  17. Reisener MJ, Pumberger M, Shue J, Girardi FP, Hughes AP : Trends in lumbar spinal fusion-a literature review. J Spine Surg 6 : 752-761, 2020 https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-20-492
  18. Saadeh YS, Joseph JR, Smith BW, Kirsch MJ, Sabbagh AM, Park P : Comparison of segmental lordosis and global spinopelvic alignment after single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 126 : e1374-e1378, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.106
  19. Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy JP, Lafage V : Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 : 2224-2231, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ee6bd4
  20. Schwab F, Ungar B, Blondel B, Buchowski J, Coe J, Deinlein D, et al. : Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37 : 1077-1082, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823e15e2
  21. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S, Hostin R, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, et al. : Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38 : E803-E812, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e318292b7b9
  22. Sembrano JN, Yson SC, Horazdovsky RD, Santos ER, Polly DW Jr : Radiographic comparison of lateral lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional fusion approaches: analysis of sagittal contour change. Int J Spine Surg 9 : 16, 2015 https://doi.org/10.14444/2016
  23. Takaoka H, Inage K, Eguchi Y, Shiga Y, Furuya T, Maki S, et al. : Comparison between intervertebral oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study. Sci Rep 11 : 16673, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95774-1
  24. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Nelson EL, Bulsara KR, Favors M, Thramann J : Safety of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and intervertebral recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Neurosurg Spine 3 : 436-443, 2005 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.6.0436
  25. Watkins RG 4th, Hanna R, Chang D, Watkins RG 3rd : Sagittal alignment after lumbar interbody fusion: comparing anterior, lateral, and transforaminal approaches. J Spinal Disord Tech 27 : 253-256, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0b013e31828a8447
  26. Wu PK, Wu MH, Shih CM, Lin YK, Chen KH, Pan CC, et al. : Comparison of incidence of adjacent segment pathology between anterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion treatments for lumbosacral junction. Tomography 7 : 855-865, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7040072
  27. Xu DS, Walker CT, Godzik J, Turner JD, Smith W, Uribe JS : Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Ann Transl Med 6 : 104, 2018 https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.03.24