Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF): Comparative Effectiveness and Safety versus PLIF/TLIF and Predictive Factors Affecting LLIF Outcome.

Giuseppe M V Barbagallo, Vincenzo Albanese, Annie L Raich, Joseph R Dettori, Ned Sherry, Massimo Balsano
{"title":"Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF): Comparative Effectiveness and Safety versus PLIF/TLIF and Predictive Factors Affecting LLIF Outcome.","authors":"Giuseppe M V Barbagallo, Vincenzo Albanese, Annie L Raich, Joseph R Dettori, Ned Sherry, Massimo Balsano","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1368670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review.</p><p><strong>Study rationale: </strong>The surgical treatment of adult degenerative lumbar conditions remains controversial. Conventional techniques include posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A new direct approach known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF(®)) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has been introduced. Objectives The objective of this article is to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF, at one or more levels with or without instrumentation, versus PLIF or TLIF surgery in adults with lumbar degenerative conditions, and to determine which preoperative factors affect patient outcomes following LLIF surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed and bibliographies of key articles. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality rating scheme.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 258 citations and the following met our inclusion criteria: three retrospective cohort studies (all using historical cohorts) (class of evidence [CoE] III) examining the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF/XLIF(®)/DLIF versus PLIF or TLIF surgery, and one prospective cohort study (CoE II) and two retrospective cohort studies (CoE III) assessing factors affecting patient outcome following LLIF. Patients in the LLIF group experienced less estimated blood loss and a lower mortality risk compared with the PLIF group. The number of levels treated and the preoperative diagnosis were significant predictors of perioperative or early complications in two studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LLIF versus PLIF/TLIF surgery. There is low-quality evidence suggesting that LLIF surgery results in fewer complications or reoperations than PLIF/TLIF surgery. And there is insufficient evidence that any preoperative factors exist that predict patient outcome after LLIF surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"28-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969425/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1368670","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

Study design: Systematic review.

Study rationale: The surgical treatment of adult degenerative lumbar conditions remains controversial. Conventional techniques include posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A new direct approach known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF(®)) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has been introduced. Objectives The objective of this article is to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF, at one or more levels with or without instrumentation, versus PLIF or TLIF surgery in adults with lumbar degenerative conditions, and to determine which preoperative factors affect patient outcomes following LLIF surgery.

Materials and methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed and bibliographies of key articles. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality rating scheme.

Results: The search yielded 258 citations and the following met our inclusion criteria: three retrospective cohort studies (all using historical cohorts) (class of evidence [CoE] III) examining the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF/XLIF(®)/DLIF versus PLIF or TLIF surgery, and one prospective cohort study (CoE II) and two retrospective cohort studies (CoE III) assessing factors affecting patient outcome following LLIF. Patients in the LLIF group experienced less estimated blood loss and a lower mortality risk compared with the PLIF group. The number of levels treated and the preoperative diagnosis were significant predictors of perioperative or early complications in two studies.

Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LLIF versus PLIF/TLIF surgery. There is low-quality evidence suggesting that LLIF surgery results in fewer complications or reoperations than PLIF/TLIF surgery. And there is insufficient evidence that any preoperative factors exist that predict patient outcome after LLIF surgery.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

腰椎外侧椎体间融合术(LLIF):与 PLIF/TLIF 的有效性和安全性比较以及影响 LLIF 结果的预测因素。
研究设计:研究原理:成人腰椎退行性病变的手术治疗仍存在争议。传统技术包括后路腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)或经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)。一种新的直接方法被称为腰椎外侧椎体间融合术(LLIF),或极外侧椎体间融合术(XLIF(®))或直接外侧椎体间融合术(DLIF)。本文旨在确定在成人腰椎退行性病变患者中,LLIF(一个或多个水平,带或不带器械)与 PLIF 或 TLIF 手术的有效性和安全性比较,并确定哪些术前因素会影响 LLIF 手术后的患者预后:利用 PubMed 和主要文章的参考书目对文献进行了系统性回顾。文章由两名独立审稿人根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准进行审阅。每篇文章均采用预定义的质量评分标准进行评估:搜索共获得258条引文,以下文章符合我们的纳入标准:三项回顾性队列研究(均使用历史队列)(证据等级[CoE]III)探讨了LLIF/XLIF(®)/DLIF与PLIF或TLIF手术的有效性和安全性比较;一项前瞻性队列研究(CoE II)和两项回顾性队列研究(CoE III)评估了影响LLIF术后患者预后的因素。与 PLIF 组相比,LLIF 组患者估计失血量较少,死亡风险较低。在两项研究中,治疗层次的数量和术前诊断是围手术期或早期并发症的重要预测因素:结论:LLIF与PLIF/TLIF手术的疗效比较证据不足。低质量证据表明,LLIF手术比PLIF/TLIF手术导致的并发症或再次手术更少。没有充分证据表明术前存在任何可预测LLIF手术后患者预后的因素。
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