Tang Alan R, Chanbour Hani, Steinle Anthony M, Jonzzon Soren, Roth Steven G, Abtahi Amir M, Stephens Byron F, Zuckerman Scott L
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA.
Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Int J Spine Surg. 2023 Apr;17(2):292-299. doi: 10.14444/8424. Epub 2023 Feb 22.
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) without an interbody device are two common approaches for single-level, open posterior fusion. Presently, it is unknown whether one of these operations leads to better outcomes. We sought to compare reoperation, complication, and readmission rates between TLIF and PLF for patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar fusion.
A single-center, retrospective cohort study utilizing prospectively collected data was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar decompression and fusion between October 2010 and April 2021 with at least 1-year follow-up. The two comparison groups were TLIF vs PLF alone without interbody. The primary outcome was need for reoperation at most recent follow-up. Secondary outcomes included 90-day complication and readmission rates. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.
A total of 850 patients were included, 591 (69.5%) of whom underwent TLIF and 259 (30.5%) of whom underwent PLF. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (interquartile range 3.7-8.9). No significant difference was found in overall reoperation rates (12.4% vs 13.9%, = 0.534). When stratified by <5-year follow-up ( = 231 TLIF, = 85 PLF; 37.2%) and ≥5-year follow-up ( = 360 TLIF, = 174 PLF; 62.8%), no significant differences were seen in either cohort (<5 years: = 24 TLIF vs = 9 PLF, = 0.959; 5+ years: = 49 TLIF vs = 27 PLF, = 0.555). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the presence of interbody fusion was not associated with reoperation (OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.66-7.74, = 0.194).
For patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar fusion without isthmic spondylolisthesis, no differences were seen in reoperation rates at long-term follow-up. Similar 90-day complication and readmission rates were seen. These results suggest that in degenerative lumbar spine disease without isthmic spondylolisthesis, TLIF and PLF achieved similar outcomes.
经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)和不使用椎间融合器的后外侧融合术(PLF)是单节段开放性后路融合的两种常见方法。目前,尚不清楚这两种手术方式哪种能带来更好的疗效。我们试图比较接受择期单节段开放性后路腰椎融合术的患者中TLIF和PLF的再次手术率、并发症发生率和再入院率。
进行了一项单中心回顾性队列研究,利用前瞻性收集的数据。纳入标准为2010年10月至2021年4月期间接受择期单节段开放性后路腰椎减压融合术且至少随访1年的患者。两个比较组分别为单纯TLIF组和单纯PLF组(不使用椎间融合器)。主要结局是在最近一次随访时是否需要再次手术。次要结局包括90天并发症发生率和再入院率。进行了单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析。
共纳入850例患者,其中591例(69.5%)接受了TLIF,259例(30.5%)接受了PLF。中位随访时间为6.1年(四分位间距3.7 - 8.9年)。总体再次手术率无显著差异(12.4%对13.9%,P = 0.534)。按随访时间<5年(TLIF组231例,PLF组85例;37.2%)和≥5年(TLIF组360例,PLF组174例;62.8%)分层时,两组均无显著差异(<5年:TLIF组24例对PLF组9例,P = 0.959;5年以上:TLIF组49例对PLF组27例,P = 0.555)。在多变量逻辑回归分析中,椎间融合的存在与再次手术无关(比值比2.26,95%置信区间0.66 - 7.74,P = 0.194)。
对于接受择期单节段开放性后路腰椎融合术且无峡部裂性脊椎滑脱的患者,长期随访时再次手术率无差异。90天并发症发生率和再入院率相似。这些结果表明,在无峡部裂性脊椎滑脱的退行性腰椎疾病中,TLIF和PLF的疗效相似。