Lenz Maximilian, Mohamud Kaliye, Bredow Jan, Oikonomidis Stavros, Eysel Peer, Scheyerer Max Joseph
Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Asian Spine J. 2022 Feb;16(1):141-149. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0405. Epub 2021 Jan 5.
We aimed to systematically review the literature to analyze the differences in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), focusing on the complications, risk factors, and fusion rate of each approach. Spinal fusion surgery is a well-established surgical procedure for a variety of indications, and different approaches developed. The various approaches and their advantages, as well as approach-related pathology and complications, are well investigated in spinal surgery. Focusing only on lumbosacral fusion, the comparative studies of different approaches remain fewer in numbers. We systematically reviewed the literature on the complications associated with lumbosacral interbody fusion. Only the PLIF, ALIF, or TLIF approaches and studies published within the last decade (2007-2017) were included. The exclusion criteria in this study were oblique lumbar interbody fusion, extreme lateral interbody fusion, more than one procedure per patient, and reported patient numbers less than 10. The outcome variables were indications, fusion rates, operation time, perioperative complications, and clinical outcome by means of Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. Five prospective, 17 retrospective, and two comparative studies that investigated the lumbosacral region were included. Mean fusion rates were 91,4%. ALIF showed a higher operation time, while PLIF resulted in greater blood loss. In all approaches, significant improvements in the clinical outcome were achieved, with ALIF showing slightly better results. Regarding complications, the ALIF technique showed the highest complication rates. Lumbosacral fusion surgery is a treatment to provide good results either through an approach for various indications as causes of lower back pain. For each surgical approach, advantages can be depicted. However, perioperative complications and risk factors are numerous and vary with ALIF, PLIF, and TLIF procedures, as well as with fusion rates.
我们旨在系统回顾文献,分析腰椎后路椎间融合术(PLIF)、腰椎前路椎间融合术(ALIF)和经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)之间的差异,重点关注每种手术方法的并发症、风险因素和融合率。脊柱融合手术是一种针对多种适应症的成熟手术方法,并且发展出了不同的手术入路。在脊柱外科领域,对各种手术入路及其优势,以及与手术入路相关的病理情况和并发症都进行了充分研究。仅聚焦于腰骶部融合,不同手术入路的比较研究数量仍然较少。我们系统回顾了与腰骶部椎间融合相关并发症的文献。仅纳入了PLIF、ALIF或TLIF手术入路以及过去十年(2007 - 2017年)内发表的研究。本研究的排除标准为斜外侧腰椎椎间融合术、极外侧椎间融合术、每位患者接受超过一种手术以及报告的患者数量少于10例。结局变量包括适应症、融合率、手术时间、围手术期并发症以及通过视觉模拟量表、Oswestry功能障碍指数和日本骨科协会评分评估的临床结局。纳入了五项针对腰骶部区域的前瞻性研究、十七项回顾性研究和两项比较研究。平均融合率为91.4%。ALIF的手术时间较长,而PLIF导致的失血量较大。在所有手术入路中,临床结局均有显著改善,ALIF的结果略好。关于并发症,ALIF技术的并发症发生率最高。腰骶部融合手术是一种通过针对各种作为下腰痛病因的适应症的手术入路来提供良好效果的治疗方法。对于每种手术入路,都可以描述其优势。然而,围手术期并发症和风险因素众多,并且因ALIF、PLIF和TLIF手术以及融合率的不同而有所差异。