Mejdeddine Al Barajraji, Salim El Hadwe, Damien Dresse, Jean-Michel Remacle, Vincent Bonhomme, Thibault Remacle
{"title":"[活动期腰椎间盘突出症的椎体间融合术：前路和后路的长期功能结果和比较]。","authors":"Mejdeddine Al Barajraji, Salim El Hadwe, Damien Dresse, Jean-Michel Remacle, Vincent Bonhomme, Thibault Remacle","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is limited evidence regarding the long-term functional outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients with refractory active lumbar discopathy (ALD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively surveyed 194 patients who underwent lumbar fusion for ALD using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Modified MacNab's Criteria (MMCQ) and reviewed medical records for complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort included 54 patients (median age: 53.5 years). Thirty underwent ALIF (L4L5: 4, L5S1: 20, L4S1: 6) and 24 had PLIF (L4L5: 8, L5S1: 12). Median follow-up was 83 (66-114) months. Excellent outcomes were more frequent in the ALIF group (34 % vs 21 %). RDQ scores were higher in the PLIF group (9 (3-17) vs 5 (0-11)). ALIF patients had fewer cases of proximal junctional kyphosis (7 % vs 25 %) but higher chronic analgesic use (33 % vs 17 %) and documented failed back surgery syndrome (13 % vs 0 %). No major complications were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both ALIF and PLIF are safe for treating recalcitrant ALD. ALIF may offer better long-term function and less disability, albeit with potentially higher analgesic use.</p>","PeriodicalId":94201,"journal":{"name":"Revue medicale de Liege","volume":"80 2","pages":"95-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Interbody fusion for active lumbar discopathy : long term functional outcome and comparison between the anterior and posterior approach].\",\"authors\":\"Mejdeddine Al Barajraji, Salim El Hadwe, Damien Dresse, Jean-Michel Remacle, Vincent Bonhomme, Thibault Remacle\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is limited evidence regarding the long-term functional outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients with refractory active lumbar discopathy (ALD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively surveyed 194 patients who underwent lumbar fusion for ALD using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Modified MacNab's Criteria (MMCQ) and reviewed medical records for complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort included 54 patients (median age: 53.5 years). Thirty underwent ALIF (L4L5: 4, L5S1: 20, L4S1: 6) and 24 had PLIF (L4L5: 8, L5S1: 12). Median follow-up was 83 (66-114) months. Excellent outcomes were more frequent in the ALIF group (34 % vs 21 %). RDQ scores were higher in the PLIF group (9 (3-17) vs 5 (0-11)). ALIF patients had fewer cases of proximal junctional kyphosis (7 % vs 25 %) but higher chronic analgesic use (33 % vs 17 %) and documented failed back surgery syndrome (13 % vs 0 %). No major complications were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both ALIF and PLIF are safe for treating recalcitrant ALD. ALIF may offer better long-term function and less disability, albeit with potentially higher analgesic use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revue medicale de Liege\",\"volume\":\"80 2\",\"pages\":\"95-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revue medicale de Liege\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revue medicale de Liege","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
[Interbody fusion for active lumbar discopathy : long term functional outcome and comparison between the anterior and posterior approach].
Background: There is limited evidence regarding the long-term functional outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients with refractory active lumbar discopathy (ALD).
Methods: We retrospectively surveyed 194 patients who underwent lumbar fusion for ALD using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Modified MacNab's Criteria (MMCQ) and reviewed medical records for complications.
Results: The cohort included 54 patients (median age: 53.5 years). Thirty underwent ALIF (L4L5: 4, L5S1: 20, L4S1: 6) and 24 had PLIF (L4L5: 8, L5S1: 12). Median follow-up was 83 (66-114) months. Excellent outcomes were more frequent in the ALIF group (34 % vs 21 %). RDQ scores were higher in the PLIF group (9 (3-17) vs 5 (0-11)). ALIF patients had fewer cases of proximal junctional kyphosis (7 % vs 25 %) but higher chronic analgesic use (33 % vs 17 %) and documented failed back surgery syndrome (13 % vs 0 %). No major complications were observed.
Conclusions: Both ALIF and PLIF are safe for treating recalcitrant ALD. ALIF may offer better long-term function and less disability, albeit with potentially higher analgesic use.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
