Choice of approach does not affect clinical and radiologic outcomes: a comparative cohort of patients having anterior lumbar interbody fusion and patients having lateral lumbar interbody fusion at 24 months

Gregory M. Malham, Rhiannon M. Parker, Carl M. Blecher, Fiona Y. Chow, Kevin A. Seex

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes between comparative cohorts of patients having anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and patients having lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS: Ninety consecutive patients were treated by a single surgeon with either ALIF (n = 50) or LLIF (n = 40). Inclusion criteria were patients age 45 to 70 years with degenerative disk disease or grade 1 to 2 spondylolisthesis and single-level pathology from L1 to S1. Patient-reported outcome measures included pain (visual analog scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and quality of life (Short Form 36 physical component score [PCS] and mental component scores [MCS]). Assessment of fusion and measurement of lordosis and posterior disk height were performed on computed tomography scans.

RESULTS: At 24 months, patients having ALIF had significant improvements in back (64%) and leg (65%) pain and ODI (60%), PCS (44%), and MCS (26%; p < 0.05) scores. Patients having LLIF had significant improvements in back (56%) and leg (57%) pain and ODI (52%), PCS (48%), and MCS (12%; p < 0.05) scores. Fourteen complications occurred in the ALIF group, and in the LLIF group, there were 17 complications (p > 0.05). The fusion rate was 100% for ALIF and 95% for LLIF (p = 0.1948). ALIF added ∼6 degrees of lordosis and 3 mm of height, primarily measured at L5-S1, and LLIF added ∼3 degrees of lordosis and 2 mm of height between L1 to L5. Mean follow-up was 34.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS: In comparative cohorts of patients having ALIF and patients having LLIF at 24 months postoperatively, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, complication rates, or fusion rates.

LanguageEnglish
Pages472-481
Number of pages10
JournalGlobal Spine Journal
Volume6
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2016

Fingerprint

Lordosis
Spondylolisthesis
Pain Measurement
Registries
Leg
Tomography
Quality of Life
Pathology
Pain

Keywords

  • anterior
  • comparison
  • complications
  • fusion
  • lateral
  • lordosis

Cite this

@article{ff530cbbd9a24081a7e701dc0489a83c,
title = "Choice of approach does not affect clinical and radiologic outcomes: a comparative cohort of patients having anterior lumbar interbody fusion and patients having lateral lumbar interbody fusion at 24 months",
abstract = "STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes between comparative cohorts of patients having anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and patients having lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).METHODS: Ninety consecutive patients were treated by a single surgeon with either ALIF (n = 50) or LLIF (n = 40). Inclusion criteria were patients age 45 to 70 years with degenerative disk disease or grade 1 to 2 spondylolisthesis and single-level pathology from L1 to S1. Patient-reported outcome measures included pain (visual analog scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and quality of life (Short Form 36 physical component score [PCS] and mental component scores [MCS]). Assessment of fusion and measurement of lordosis and posterior disk height were performed on computed tomography scans.RESULTS: At 24 months, patients having ALIF had significant improvements in back (64{\%}) and leg (65{\%}) pain and ODI (60{\%}), PCS (44{\%}), and MCS (26{\%}; p < 0.05) scores. Patients having LLIF had significant improvements in back (56{\%}) and leg (57{\%}) pain and ODI (52{\%}), PCS (48{\%}), and MCS (12{\%}; p < 0.05) scores. Fourteen complications occurred in the ALIF group, and in the LLIF group, there were 17 complications (p > 0.05). The fusion rate was 100{\%} for ALIF and 95{\%} for LLIF (p = 0.1948). ALIF added ∼6 degrees of lordosis and 3 mm of height, primarily measured at L5-S1, and LLIF added ∼3 degrees of lordosis and 2 mm of height between L1 to L5. Mean follow-up was 34.1 months.CONCLUSIONS: In comparative cohorts of patients having ALIF and patients having LLIF at 24 months postoperatively, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, complication rates, or fusion rates.",
keywords = "anterior, comparison, complications, fusion, lateral, lordosis",
author = "Malham, {Gregory M.} and Parker, {Rhiannon M.} and Blecher, {Carl M.} and Chow, {Fiona Y.} and Seex, {Kevin A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1055/s-0035-1569055",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "472--481",
journal = "Global Spine Journal",
issn = "2192-5682",
publisher = "Georg Thieme Verlag",
number = "5",

}

Choice of approach does not affect clinical and radiologic outcomes : a comparative cohort of patients having anterior lumbar interbody fusion and patients having lateral lumbar interbody fusion at 24 months. / Malham, Gregory M.; Parker, Rhiannon M.; Blecher, Carl M.; Chow, Fiona Y.; Seex, Kevin A.

In: Global Spine Journal, Vol. 6, No. 5, 01.08.2016, p. 472-481.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Choice of approach does not affect clinical and radiologic outcomes

T2 - Global Spine Journal

AU - Malham, Gregory M.

AU - Parker, Rhiannon M.

AU - Blecher, Carl M.

AU - Chow, Fiona Y.

AU - Seex, Kevin A.

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes between comparative cohorts of patients having anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and patients having lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).METHODS: Ninety consecutive patients were treated by a single surgeon with either ALIF (n = 50) or LLIF (n = 40). Inclusion criteria were patients age 45 to 70 years with degenerative disk disease or grade 1 to 2 spondylolisthesis and single-level pathology from L1 to S1. Patient-reported outcome measures included pain (visual analog scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and quality of life (Short Form 36 physical component score [PCS] and mental component scores [MCS]). Assessment of fusion and measurement of lordosis and posterior disk height were performed on computed tomography scans.RESULTS: At 24 months, patients having ALIF had significant improvements in back (64%) and leg (65%) pain and ODI (60%), PCS (44%), and MCS (26%; p < 0.05) scores. Patients having LLIF had significant improvements in back (56%) and leg (57%) pain and ODI (52%), PCS (48%), and MCS (12%; p < 0.05) scores. Fourteen complications occurred in the ALIF group, and in the LLIF group, there were 17 complications (p > 0.05). The fusion rate was 100% for ALIF and 95% for LLIF (p = 0.1948). ALIF added ∼6 degrees of lordosis and 3 mm of height, primarily measured at L5-S1, and LLIF added ∼3 degrees of lordosis and 2 mm of height between L1 to L5. Mean follow-up was 34.1 months.CONCLUSIONS: In comparative cohorts of patients having ALIF and patients having LLIF at 24 months postoperatively, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, complication rates, or fusion rates.

AB - STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes between comparative cohorts of patients having anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and patients having lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).METHODS: Ninety consecutive patients were treated by a single surgeon with either ALIF (n = 50) or LLIF (n = 40). Inclusion criteria were patients age 45 to 70 years with degenerative disk disease or grade 1 to 2 spondylolisthesis and single-level pathology from L1 to S1. Patient-reported outcome measures included pain (visual analog scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and quality of life (Short Form 36 physical component score [PCS] and mental component scores [MCS]). Assessment of fusion and measurement of lordosis and posterior disk height were performed on computed tomography scans.RESULTS: At 24 months, patients having ALIF had significant improvements in back (64%) and leg (65%) pain and ODI (60%), PCS (44%), and MCS (26%; p < 0.05) scores. Patients having LLIF had significant improvements in back (56%) and leg (57%) pain and ODI (52%), PCS (48%), and MCS (12%; p < 0.05) scores. Fourteen complications occurred in the ALIF group, and in the LLIF group, there were 17 complications (p > 0.05). The fusion rate was 100% for ALIF and 95% for LLIF (p = 0.1948). ALIF added ∼6 degrees of lordosis and 3 mm of height, primarily measured at L5-S1, and LLIF added ∼3 degrees of lordosis and 2 mm of height between L1 to L5. Mean follow-up was 34.1 months.CONCLUSIONS: In comparative cohorts of patients having ALIF and patients having LLIF at 24 months postoperatively, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, complication rates, or fusion rates.

KW - anterior

KW - comparison

KW - complications

KW - fusion

KW - lateral

KW - lordosis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020817430&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0035-1569055

DO - 10.1055/s-0035-1569055

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 472

EP - 481

JO - Global Spine Journal

JF - Global Spine Journal

SN - 2192-5682

IS - 5

ER -