Outcome of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion with Instrumentation in Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Disorders

H. Sabry, Salah A. Hemida, K. Saoud, Emad H. Abouelmaaty
{"title":"Outcome of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion with Instrumentation in Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Disorders","authors":"H. Sabry, Salah A. Hemida, K. Saoud, Emad H. Abouelmaaty","doi":"10.21608/ESJ.2021.50482.1156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Data: Degenerative lumbar spine disorders are common pathologies that usually affect females in their sixth decade or older. Patients usually present with various symptoms, including back pain, radiculopathy, or neurogenic claudication, among other less common presentations. Different fusion procedures are available to manage these problems. \nPurpose: This study was designed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in managing degenerative lumbar disorders. \nStudy Design: A prospective study. \nPatients and Methods: This study was conducted on patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent lumbar spine fixation with either TLIF or PLF. Patients were randomized into two groups according to the operative procedure: Group A (20 patients) underwent TLIF and Group B (20 patients) underwent PLF. Patients were followed up and assessed for back and leg pain, functional disability, and spinal fusion. \nResults: We found that both TLIF and PLF improve disability and pain in patients with degenerative lumbar disorders. TLIF was found to be superior to PLF as regards achieving radiographic outcomes. We did not find strong evidence to support the use of interbody fusion along with transpedicular fixation compared to traditional posterolateral fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disorders, taking into consideration the higher material costs added with interbody fusion. \nConclusion: The reported data in the present study suggest that both TLIF and PLF provide improvement of disability and pain in patients with degenerative lumbar disorders. They also suggest that TLIF is superior to PLF when comparing the achievement of radiographic fusion. However, there is no significant clinical outcome difference to recommend using TLIF over traditional PLF in treating degenerative lumbar disorders, especially with the higher treatment costs related to the use of interbody fusion. (2020ESJ217)","PeriodicalId":11610,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/ESJ.2021.50482.1156","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Data: Degenerative lumbar spine disorders are common pathologies that usually affect females in their sixth decade or older. Patients usually present with various symptoms, including back pain, radiculopathy, or neurogenic claudication, among other less common presentations. Different fusion procedures are available to manage these problems. Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in managing degenerative lumbar disorders. Study Design: A prospective study. Patients and Methods: This study was conducted on patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent lumbar spine fixation with either TLIF or PLF. Patients were randomized into two groups according to the operative procedure: Group A (20 patients) underwent TLIF and Group B (20 patients) underwent PLF. Patients were followed up and assessed for back and leg pain, functional disability, and spinal fusion. Results: We found that both TLIF and PLF improve disability and pain in patients with degenerative lumbar disorders. TLIF was found to be superior to PLF as regards achieving radiographic outcomes. We did not find strong evidence to support the use of interbody fusion along with transpedicular fixation compared to traditional posterolateral fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disorders, taking into consideration the higher material costs added with interbody fusion. Conclusion: The reported data in the present study suggest that both TLIF and PLF provide improvement of disability and pain in patients with degenerative lumbar disorders. They also suggest that TLIF is superior to PLF when comparing the achievement of radiographic fusion. However, there is no significant clinical outcome difference to recommend using TLIF over traditional PLF in treating degenerative lumbar disorders, especially with the higher treatment costs related to the use of interbody fusion. (2020ESJ217)
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术与后外侧腰椎内固定融合术治疗退行性腰椎疾病的疗效比较
背景资料:退行性腰椎疾病是常见的疾病,通常影响60岁或以上的女性。患者通常表现出各种症状,包括背痛、神经根病或神经源性跛行,以及其他不太常见的症状。不同的融合程序可用于处理这些问题。目的:本研究旨在评估经椎间孔腰椎融合术(TLIF)和后外侧融合术(PLF)治疗退行性腰椎疾病的临床和放射学结果。研究设计:前瞻性研究。患者和方法:本研究对接受TLIF或PLF腰椎固定的退行性腰椎滑脱和退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者进行。根据手术程序将患者随机分为两组:A组(20例)接受TLIF,B组(20名)接受PLF。对患者进行随访,评估其背部和腿部疼痛、功能残疾和脊柱融合情况。结果:我们发现TLIF和PLF都能改善退行性腰椎疾病患者的残疾和疼痛。TLIF在获得放射学结果方面优于PLF。考虑到椎间融合术增加的材料成本较高,与传统的后外侧融合术相比,我们没有发现强有力的证据支持在治疗退行性腰椎疾病时使用椎间融合术和经椎弓根固定。结论:本研究报告的数据表明,TLIF和PLF都能改善退行性腰椎疾病患者的残疾和疼痛。他们还认为,在比较放射学融合的成就时,TLIF优于PLF。然而,在治疗退行性腰椎疾病时,建议使用TLIF与传统PLF相比,没有显著的临床结果差异,尤其是在使用椎间融合的治疗成本较高的情况下。(2020ESJ217)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 weeks
期刊最新文献
Extremity Peripheral Nerve Injuries: Is There Any Role of Specialized Field Hospital in the Management of Low-Velocity Penetrating Peripheral Nerve Injuries? Short-Segment Posterior Fixation with Index Level Screws versus Long-Segment Posterior Fixation in Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Awake Spine Surgery: Fad or Future? Pedicle Screw/Sublaminar Hook Fixation versus Pedicle Screw/Infraspinous Wire Fixation for Spondylolysis Repair: A Retrospective Comparative Study with MSCT Assessment Absence of the Musculocutaneous Nerve While Performing Nerve Transfer Surgery in a Patient with Brachial Plexus Injury, Rare Variant, and Review of Literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1