• Neurosurgery · Sep 2016

    Benefit of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion vs Posterolateral Spinal Fusion in Lumbar Spine Disorders: a Propensity-Matched Analysis From the National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database Registry.

    • Steven D Glassman, Leah Y Carreon, Zoher Ghogawala, Kevin T Foley, Matthew J McGirt, and Anthony L Asher.
    • *Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, Kentucky; ‡Alan and Jacqueline Stuart Spine Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts; §Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center and Semmes-Murphey Neurologic and Spine Institute, Memphis, Tennessee; ¶Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina.
    • Neurosurgery. 2016 Sep 1; 79 (3): 397-405.

    BackgroundDespite increasing use and potential benefits of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF), previous studies have not documented improved clinical outcomes with TLIF vs PSF.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of TLIF with PSF in patients with spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and adjacent level disease.MethodsThe National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had a lumbar fusion. Eighty-five percent (1722) of enrolled cases had 12-month follow-up data. There were 306 PSF patients and 1230 TLIF patients. PSF cases within each diagnostic subgroup were propensity-matched to patients who had TLIF. Sufficient propensity-matched controls were available for patients with spondylolisthesis (109), spinal stenosis (63), and adjacent segment disease (47).ResultsOperating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were similar between PSF and TLIF in all 3 propensity-matched groups. In the spondylolisthesis group, there was a greater improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) with TLIF vs PSF at 3 months (19.4 vs 26.0, P = .009), 12 months (20.8 vs 29.3, P = .001), and in percentage reaching minimal clinically important difference at 12 months (80% vs 62%, P = .007). There were no differences in ODI improvement between PSF and TLIF in the stenosis or adjacent segment disease groups.ConclusionTLIF generated more favorable ODI outcomes than PSF for patients with spondylolisthesis, but not for patients with spinal stenosis or adjacent segment disease. There was also equivalence in operating room time and estimated blood loss between TLIF and PSF, potentially altering the long-standing assumption that PSF is a simpler procedure.AbbreviationsASA, American Society of AnesthesiologistsEBL, estimated blood lossEQ-5D, EuroQOL-5DHRQOL, health-related quality of lifeMCID, minimal clinically important differenceNQOD, National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes DatabaseNRS, numeric rating scaleODI, Oswestry Disability IndexOR, operating roomPSF, posterolateral spinal fusionTLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

      Pubmed     Full text   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.