Malik Hassan Awan, Kiebler Andreas, Müller Julia, Caffard Thomas, Zippelius Timo, Ferraris Luis, Reichel Heiko, Cakir Balkan, Kocak Tugrul
Spine Center, Werner-Wicker-Klinik, Im Kreuzfeld 4, 34537, Bad Wildungen, Germany.
Orthopedic Practice Kiebler, Bocksgasse 2, 73525, Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany.
J Orthop. 2025 Jun 3;69:162-171. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2025.06.002. eCollection 2025 Nov.
Restoring the sagittal balance of the spine has gained significant importance. Still there is little data objectifying the influence of a monosegmental fusion or the implants used.This is a comparative study that directly contrasts PLIF and TLIF regarding their impact on sagittal balance. In this study 53 patients who received a monosegmental lumbar fusion were followed up.
53 patients (37 women, 16 men, average age 57.4 years) who received a monosegmental spondylodesis were followed up with an average time of 15.1 months.To objectify the potential postoperative changes radiographs were made to measure the index segments lordosis as well as the lumbar lordosis overall. A further subdivision was made according to the operated functional spinal segment treated and cage used.
Overall no significant changes in total or segmental lordosis were found. Statistically significant changes were measurable on immediately postoperative radiographs and declined in time, while lumbar lordosis decreased, segmental lordosis increased. Segmental lordosis was consistent. Comparing patients operated in PLIF and TLIF technique the overall lordosis showed the same patterns. Segmental lordosis was increased postoperatively (p = 0.0162). Followed by a significant loss (p = 0.0405). The TM 500 PLIF Cage showed a significantly improved lumbar lordosis over the course compared with postoperative values, but not in comparison to the preoperative values.
We were unable to find significant difference of the sagittal profile after a monosegmental instrumentation and fusion in the lumbar spine. However, the PLIF procedure seems to be superior with regards of lordosis restoration. The L4/5 segment also seems to have a greater potential for correction the L5/S1 segment in the long term.
恢复脊柱矢状面平衡已变得极为重要。然而,关于单节段融合或所用植入物影响的数据仍很少。这是一项比较研究,直接对比经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)和后路腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)对矢状面平衡的影响。本研究对53例行单节段腰椎融合术的患者进行了随访。
对53例(37例女性,16例男性,平均年龄57.4岁)接受单节段脊柱融合术的患者进行了平均15.1个月的随访。为明确潜在的术后变化,拍摄X线片以测量目标节段的前凸以及整个腰椎的前凸。根据所治疗的功能性脊柱节段和所用椎间融合器进一步细分。
总体而言,未发现总前凸或节段性前凸有显著变化。术后即刻X线片上可测量到有统计学意义的变化,且随时间下降,同时腰椎前凸减小,节段性前凸增加。节段性前凸是一致的。比较采用PLIF和TLIF技术手术的患者,总体前凸呈现相同模式。术后节段性前凸增加(p = 0.0162)。随后有显著丢失(p = 0.0405)。与术后值相比,TM 500 PLIF椎间融合器在整个过程中显示腰椎前凸有显著改善,但与术前值相比则不然。
我们未能发现腰椎单节段内固定融合术后矢状面形态有显著差异。然而,PLIF手术在恢复前凸方面似乎更具优势。从长期来看,L4/5节段在矫正方面似乎也比L5/S1节段有更大潜力。