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":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Transforaminal Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 for Degenerative Spine Disease : A Meta-Analysis.
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
