Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Downey, CA, USA.
Surgical Outcomes and Analysis, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA.
Spine J. 2021 Jul;21(7):1118-1125. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.018. Epub 2021 Feb 26.
Although fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar fusions with pedicle screws (PLF+PS) and anterior lumbar interbody fusions with pedicle screws (ALIF+PS) have been reported, there has been no consensus on superiority with respect to clinical outcome and nonunion rates. Most studies determine nonunion rates based on radiographic studies; however, many of these nonunions are asymptomatic and may not require reoperations. Hence, a potentially more clinically useful measure is the reoperation rate for symptomatic nonunions, which we term the operative nonunion rate.
To determine if there is a difference in operative nonunion rates between PLF+PS versus ALIF+PS.
Retrospective cohort study.
Adult patients (≥18 years old) with the diagnosis of lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent primary elective PLF+PS and ALIF+PS for 1-level and 2-level fusions (L4-S1) between 2009 and 2018.
Reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions (ie, operative nonunion rates).
Patients were followed until validated operative nonunions, membership termination, death, or 03/31/2019. Descriptive statistics and 2-year incidence rates for operative nonunions were calculated by fusion-level, fusion type, and levels fused. Time-dependent multivariable Cox-Proportional Hazards regression was used to evaluate operative nonunion rates with adjustment for covariates or risk change estimates more than 10%.
We identified 2,061 patients (PLF+PS:1,491, ALIF+PS:570) with average follow-up time of 4.8 (±3.1) years and average time to operative nonunion of 1.3 (±1.2) yrs. Comparatively, unadjusted 1-level and 2-level incidence rates for operative nonunions were higher in PLF+PS versus ALIF+PS. For 1-level procedures these were 0.9% (95% CI=0.4-1.6) versus 0.6% (95% CI=0.1-2.1); 2-level, 2.0% (95% CI=0.8-4.0) versus 0.9% (95% CI=0.1-3.3). However, there were no observed significant differences in risks for operative nonunions in multivariable models comparing PLF+PS versus ALIF+PS (HR=0.3, 95% CI=0.1-1.1), 1-level versus 2-level fusions (HR=1.8, 95% CI=0.8-4.3), or by fusion level (L4-L5: HR=1.0, 95% CI=0.4-2.7; L5-S1: HR=2.0, 95% CI=0.7-5.4).
A large cohort of patients with lumbar fusions between L4 to S1 and an average follow-up of >4 years found that although there was a trend for higher operative nonunions in PLF+PS compared with ALIF+PS, this was not statistically significant. The role of spinal alignment was not investigated.
尽管已经报道了后路腰椎融合术(PLF+PS)和前路腰椎体间融合术(ALIF+PS)的融合率,但在临床结果和非融合率方面尚未达成优势共识。大多数研究都是基于影像学研究来确定非融合率;然而,许多这些非融合是无症状的,可能不需要再次手术。因此,一种潜在更具临床意义的衡量标准是症状性非融合的再手术率,我们称之为手术性非融合率。
确定 PLF+PS 与 ALIF+PS 之间手术性非融合率是否存在差异。
回顾性队列研究。
2009 年至 2018 年间接受 1 级和 2 级(L4-S1)融合的原发性选择性 PLF+PS 和 ALIF+PS 的成年患者(≥18 岁),诊断为腰椎滑脱或腰椎管狭窄症。
症状性非融合(即手术性非融合率)的再手术率。
患者随访至经证实的手术性非融合、会员资格终止、死亡或 2019 年 3 月 31 日。按融合水平、融合类型和融合节段计算手术性非融合的描述性统计数据和 2 年发生率。使用时间依赖性多变量 Cox 比例风险回归来评估手术性非融合率,并调整协变量或风险变化估计值大于 10%。
我们确定了 2061 名患者(PLF+PS:1491 名,ALIF+PS:570 名),平均随访时间为 4.8(±3.1)年,平均手术性非融合时间为 1.3(±1.2)年。相比之下,PLF+PS 与 ALIF+PS 相比,未经调整的 1 级和 2 级手术性非融合发生率更高。对于 1 级手术,这些发生率分别为 0.9%(95%CI=0.4-1.6)和 0.6%(95%CI=0.1-2.1);2 级手术分别为 2.0%(95%CI=0.8-4.0)和 0.9%(95%CI=0.1-3.3)。然而,在比较 PLF+PS 与 ALIF+PS、1 级与 2 级融合或融合水平(L4-L5:HR=1.0,95%CI=0.4-2.7;L5-S1:HR=2.0,95%CI=0.7-5.4)的多变量模型中,PLF+PS 与 ALIF+PS 之间手术性非融合的风险没有观察到显著差异(HR=0.3,95%CI=0.1-1.1)。
一项涉及 L4 至 S1 的腰椎融合术的大型患者队列研究,平均随访时间超过 4 年,发现尽管 PLF+PS 比 ALIF+PS 有更高的手术性非融合趋势,但这在统计学上并不显著。脊柱排列的作用未被研究。