Transforaminal Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 for Degenerative Spine Disease : A Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Spine Pub Date : 2025-06-15 Epub Date: 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005315
Alan H Daniels, Mohammad Daher, Joseph E Nassar, Sleiman Haddad, Louis Boissiere, Richard K Hurley, William F Lavelle, Peter G Passias, Bassel G Diebo, Amer Sebaaly
{"title":"Transforaminal Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 for Degenerative Spine Disease : A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Alan H Daniels, Mohammad Daher, Joseph E Nassar, Sleiman Haddad, Louis Boissiere, Richard K Hurley, William F Lavelle, Peter G Passias, Bassel G Diebo, Amer Sebaaly","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This meta-analysis will compare transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5-S1 in lumbar degenerative spine diseases (DSDs).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Interbody device placement is indicated for alignment correction, sustaining decompression, achieving fusion, and is an effective and widely performed surgical treatment for lumbar DSD. ALIF and TLIF are the 2 most commonly performed approaches for the management of DSD at L5-S1.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Following the PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1 to 20) were accessed and explored until December 2024. The extracted data consisted of complications, reoperations, surgery-related parameters, patient-reported outcome measures, and postoperative radiographic parameters. Across all studies, mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were used for continuous data, whereas odds ratio (OR) was utilized for dichotomous data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine retrospective articles were included in the meta-analysis, including 1292 patients, with 694 in the TLIF group and 598 in the ALIF group. Patients undergoing TLIF were found to have higher rates of overall complications (Odds-ratio = 1.66; P = 0.005) and reoperations (Odds-ratio = 5.92; P = 0.03; although 2 studies were included in this analysis), shorter operative time in MIS TLIF compared with ALIF (MD = -47.00; P < 0.001), more blood loss in open TLIF compared with ALIF (MD = 135.05; P < 0.001), and less improvement in lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis (MD = -3.48; P = 0.03; MD = -5.86; P < 0.001). However, there was no difference in patient-reported outcome measures between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients undergoing TLIF at L5-S1 for their DSD, compared with ALIF, had higher rates of complications and reoperations, greater blood loss, and less improvement in sagittal alignment. These results highlight the efficacy, power, and safety of ALIF and its benefits in restoring alignment, which may optimize long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":"E231-E239"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005315","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Meta-analysis.

Objective: This meta-analysis will compare transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5-S1 in lumbar degenerative spine diseases (DSDs).

Background: Interbody device placement is indicated for alignment correction, sustaining decompression, achieving fusion, and is an effective and widely performed surgical treatment for lumbar DSD. ALIF and TLIF are the 2 most commonly performed approaches for the management of DSD at L5-S1.

Materials and methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1 to 20) were accessed and explored until December 2024. The extracted data consisted of complications, reoperations, surgery-related parameters, patient-reported outcome measures, and postoperative radiographic parameters. Across all studies, mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were used for continuous data, whereas odds ratio (OR) was utilized for dichotomous data.

Results: Nine retrospective articles were included in the meta-analysis, including 1292 patients, with 694 in the TLIF group and 598 in the ALIF group. Patients undergoing TLIF were found to have higher rates of overall complications (Odds-ratio = 1.66; P = 0.005) and reoperations (Odds-ratio = 5.92; P = 0.03; although 2 studies were included in this analysis), shorter operative time in MIS TLIF compared with ALIF (MD = -47.00; P < 0.001), more blood loss in open TLIF compared with ALIF (MD = 135.05; P < 0.001), and less improvement in lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis (MD = -3.48; P = 0.03; MD = -5.86; P < 0.001). However, there was no difference in patient-reported outcome measures between the 2 groups.

Conclusion: Patients undergoing TLIF at L5-S1 for their DSD, compared with ALIF, had higher rates of complications and reoperations, greater blood loss, and less improvement in sagittal alignment. These results highlight the efficacy, power, and safety of ALIF and its benefits in restoring alignment, which may optimize long-term outcomes.

L5-S1椎间孔融合术与前路腰椎椎间融合术治疗退行性脊柱疾病的meta分析
研究设计:荟萃分析。目的:本荟萃分析将比较经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)和前路腰椎椎体间融合术(ALIF)在腰椎退行性脊柱疾病(DSD)中的作用。背景:椎体间装置放置用于矫正对齐,持续减压,实现融合,是一种有效且广泛应用的腰椎DSD手术治疗方法。ALIF和TLIF是治疗L5-S1段DSD最常用的两种方法。方法:按照PRISMA指南,检索PubMed、Cochrane和谷歌Scholar(第1-20页),直到2024年12月。提取的数据包括并发症、再手术、手术相关参数、患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)和术后放射学参数。在所有研究中,连续数据使用95% CI的平均差异(MD),而二分数据使用优势比(OR)。结果:meta分析纳入9篇回顾性文章,共1292例患者,其中TLIF组694例,ALIF组598例。接受TLIF的患者总体并发症发生率较高(OR=1.66;P=0.005)和再手术(OR=5.92;P = 0.03;尽管本分析中包括2项研究),与ALIF相比,MIS TLIF的手术时间更短(MD=-47.00;结论:与ALIF相比,在L5-S1处接受TLIF治疗DSD的患者有更高的并发症和再手术率,更大的出血量,矢状面排列改善较少。这些结果强调了ALIF的有效性、力量和安全性,以及它在恢复对齐方面的益处,这可能会优化长期结果。
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
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信