Barbagallo Giuseppe M V, Albanese Vincenzo, Raich Annie L, Dettori Joseph R, Sherry Ned, Balsano Massimo
Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Policlinico University Hospital, Catania, Italy.
Spectrum Research, Inc., Tacoma, Washington, United States.
Evid Based Spine Care J. 2014 Apr;5(1):28-37. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1368670.
Systematic review.
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.
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.
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.
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.
系统评价。
成人退行性腰椎疾病的外科治疗仍存在争议。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)。一种新的直接入路方法,即腰椎外侧椎间融合术(LLIF),或极外侧椎间融合术(XLIF(®))或直接外侧椎间融合术(DLIF)已被引入。目的 本文的目的是确定在有或没有内固定的一个或多个节段上,LLIF与PLIF或TLIF手术相比,在患有腰椎退行性疾病的成人中的相对有效性和安全性,并确定哪些术前因素会影响LLIF手术后的患者预后。
使用PubMed和关键文章的参考文献对文献进行系统评价。文章由两名独立的审阅者根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准进行审阅。每篇文章都使用预定义的质量评级方案进行评估。
检索产生了258条引用,以下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),研究LLIF/XLIF(®)/DLIF与PLIF或TLIF手术的相对有效性和安全性,以及一项前瞻性队列研究(CoE II)和两项回顾性队列研究(CoE III),评估影响LLIF术后患者预后的因素。与PLIF组相比,LLIF组患者的估计失血量更少,死亡风险更低。在两项研究中,治疗节段数和术前诊断是围手术期或早期并发症的重要预测因素。
LLIF与PLIF/TLIF手术相对有效性的证据不足。有低质量证据表明,LLIF手术比PLIF/TLIF手术导致的并发症或再次手术更少。并且没有足够的证据表明存在任何术前因素可预测LLIF手术后的患者预后。