Preservation of the Posterior Interspinous Ligamentary Complex in Posterior and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Surgeries Pub Date : 2023-11-27 DOI:10.3390/surgeries4040058
Renato Gondar, C. Jesse, R. Schär, J. Fichtner, C. Fung, Andreas Raabe, C.T. Ulrich
{"title":"Preservation of the Posterior Interspinous Ligamentary Complex in Posterior and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion","authors":"Renato Gondar, C. Jesse, R. Schär, J. Fichtner, C. Fung, Andreas Raabe, C.T. Ulrich","doi":"10.3390/surgeries4040058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF and TLIF) allow some variation between surgeons, particularly regarding the extent of resection of the posterior interspinous ligamentary complex (PILC) with uncertain implications for outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the importance of preserving the PILC when performing PLIF or TLIF. Systematic review of clinical outcomes (adjacent segment degeneration (ASDG), fusion rate, reoperation rate, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain) after PLIF/TLIF matched for integrity of PILC, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and radiological parameters. A total of 191 patients from 2 studies (1 prospective randomized control trial (RCT) and 1 retrospective observational cohort study) were identified. 102 (53.4%) had fusion (PLIF/TLIF) with preserved PILC. All 120 patients in the RCT underwent a L4–L5 single-level fusion, while the 71 patients in the retrospective cohort underwent surgery between T11 and S1. In the retrospective cohort study, significant differences between groups in mean number of fixed levels (4.8 ± 1.0 vs. 4.2 ± 0.5), decompressed levels (2.4 ± 0.7 vs. 3.0 ± 0.7), and interbody fusions (1.2 ± 0.9 vs. 2.0 ± 1.0) were reported. In each of the studies, all groups reported an improved ODI score at 3 months after surgery and at last follow-up. In each of the studies, the incidence of radiographic ASDG was significantly higher for the PILC resection group in both studies (9.0% vs. 43.0%, p < 0.01 and 23.0% vs. 49.0%, p = 0.042). Lumbar lordosis (which decreased after PILC resection in the RCT, p < 0.05) also differed between groups. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that preservation of the PILC during PLIF/TLIF surgery prevents future ASDG and loss of lumbar lordosis as well as the potential clinical consequences of these changes. Further prospective studies are needed.","PeriodicalId":506240,"journal":{"name":"Surgeries","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgeries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries4040058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF and TLIF) allow some variation between surgeons, particularly regarding the extent of resection of the posterior interspinous ligamentary complex (PILC) with uncertain implications for outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the importance of preserving the PILC when performing PLIF or TLIF. Systematic review of clinical outcomes (adjacent segment degeneration (ASDG), fusion rate, reoperation rate, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain) after PLIF/TLIF matched for integrity of PILC, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and radiological parameters. A total of 191 patients from 2 studies (1 prospective randomized control trial (RCT) and 1 retrospective observational cohort study) were identified. 102 (53.4%) had fusion (PLIF/TLIF) with preserved PILC. All 120 patients in the RCT underwent a L4–L5 single-level fusion, while the 71 patients in the retrospective cohort underwent surgery between T11 and S1. In the retrospective cohort study, significant differences between groups in mean number of fixed levels (4.8 ± 1.0 vs. 4.2 ± 0.5), decompressed levels (2.4 ± 0.7 vs. 3.0 ± 0.7), and interbody fusions (1.2 ± 0.9 vs. 2.0 ± 1.0) were reported. In each of the studies, all groups reported an improved ODI score at 3 months after surgery and at last follow-up. In each of the studies, the incidence of radiographic ASDG was significantly higher for the PILC resection group in both studies (9.0% vs. 43.0%, p < 0.01 and 23.0% vs. 49.0%, p = 0.042). Lumbar lordosis (which decreased after PILC resection in the RCT, p < 0.05) also differed between groups. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that preservation of the PILC during PLIF/TLIF surgery prevents future ASDG and loss of lumbar lordosis as well as the potential clinical consequences of these changes. Further prospective studies are needed.
在后路和经椎间孔腰椎椎体融合术中保留后路棘间韧带复合体
后路和经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(PLIF 和 TLIF)允许外科医生之间存在一些差异,尤其是在后棘间韧带复合体(PILC)的切除范围方面,这对手术结果的影响并不确定。本研究旨在评估在进行 PLIF 或 TLIF 时保留 PILC 的重要性。对PLIF/TLIF术后的临床结果(邻近节段变性(ASDG)、融合率、再手术率、腰腿痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分)进行系统回顾,并匹配PILC的完整性、Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评分和放射学参数。两项研究(一项前瞻性随机对照试验(RCT)和一项回顾性观察队列研究)共确定了 191 名患者。102例(53.4%)患者接受了保留PILC的融合术(PLIF/TLIF)。RCT 中的 120 名患者均接受了 L4-L5 单层次融合术,而回顾性队列中的 71 名患者则在 T11 和 S1 之间接受了手术。在回顾性队列研究中,各组之间在固定水平(4.8 ± 1.0 vs. 4.2 ± 0.5)、减压水平(2.4 ± 0.7 vs. 3.0 ± 0.7)和椎间融合(1.2 ± 0.9 vs. 2.0 ± 1.0)的平均数量上存在显著差异。在每项研究中,所有组别在术后3个月和最后一次随访时的ODI评分均有所改善。在两项研究中,PILC 切除术组的影像学 ASDG 发生率均显著高于 PILC 切除术组(9.0% 对 43.0%,p < 0.01;23.0% 对 49.0%,p = 0.042)。腰椎前凸(在研究中,PILC 切除术后腰椎前凸减少,p < 0.05)在不同组间也存在差异。总的来说,这些结果表明,在 PLIF/TLIF 手术中保留 PILC 可以预防未来的 ASDG 和腰椎前凸的丧失,以及这些变化的潜在临床后果。还需要进一步的前瞻性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信