• World Neurosurg · Mar 2023

    Review

    Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF/DLIF/XLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery in spinal degenerative disease: a systematic review.

    • Sven Bamps, Vincent Raymaekers, Gert Roosen, Eric Put, Steven Vanvolsem, Salah-Eddine Achahbar, Sacha Meeuws, Maarten Wissels, and Mark Plazier.
    • Department of Neurosurgery, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium; Department of Neurosurgery, St. Trudo Hospital, Sint-Truiden, Belgium; Department of Neurosurgery, St. Franciscus Hospital, Heusden-Zolder, Belgium; Study and Training Center Neurosurgery, Virga Jesse, Hasselt, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Life Science, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium. Electronic address: Sven.bamps@jessazh.be.
    • World Neurosurg. 2023 Mar 1; 171: 101810-18.

    BackgroundDegenerative diseases of the lumbar spine are often treated with posterior interbody fusion surgery (posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF]) for spinal instability or intractable back pain with neurologic impairment. Several lateral, less invasive procedures have recently been described (lateral lumbar interbody fusion [LLIF]/direct lateral interbody fusion/extreme lateral interbody fusion [XLIF]). The aim of this systematic review is to compare structural and functional outcomes of lateral surgical approaches to PLIF.MethodsWe conducted a MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library search for studies focusing on outcomes and complications comparing LLIF (direct lateral interbody fusion/XLIF) and PLIF. The systematic review was reported using the PRISMA criteria.ResultsIn total, 1000 research articles were identified, of which 5 studies were included comparing the outcomes and complications between the lateral and posterior approach. Three studies found significantly less perioperative blood loss with a lateral approach. Average hospital stay was shorter in populations who underwent the lateral approach compared with PLIF. Functional outcomes (visual analog scale score/Oswestry Disability Index) were similar or better with LLIF. In most of the included studies, complication rates did not differ between the posterior and lateral approach. Most of the neurologic deficits with XLIF/LLIF were temporary and healed completely within 1 year follow-up.ConclusionsA lateral approach (XLIF/LLIF) is a good and safe alternative for PLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar diseases, with comparable functional outcomes, shorter hospital stays, and less blood loss. Future prospective studies are needed to establish the role of lateral minimally invasive approaches in spinal degenerative surgery.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.