A meta-analysis comparing ALIF, PLIF, TLIF and LLIF

Teng, Ian; Han, Julian Xinguang; Phan, Kevin; Mobbs, Ralph J.

doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2017.06.013

Cited by 188 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The ALIF approach has demonstrated high fusion rates, good radiological outcomes, good restoration of disc height & lordosis, and also a reduced risk for dural injuries (3,7,8). However, with the anterior approach there is the need to access through the abdomen via a retroperitoneal approach, with the potential risk for vascular and visceral injuries; and retrograde ejaculation (2,3,7,8). The vascular injury is a major concern, however when the ALIF procedure is performed by a team of a vascular surgeon and spine surgeon-there is a reduction in vascular injuries, operation time and duration of hospital stay (9,10).…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are various approaches to LIF: anterior (ALIF), posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), oblique (OLIF) and lateral (LLIF). The LIF involves placement of an implant device following discectomy and endplate preparation (2,3). ALIF was first described in the treatment of Pott's disease (4), and over time, ALIF procedure has been studied extensively and is now a commonly performed procedure for degenerative lumbar spinal disease (3,5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The LIF involves placement of an implant device following discectomy and endplate preparation (2,3). ALIF was first described in the treatment of Pott's disease (4), and over time, ALIF procedure has been studied extensively and is now a commonly performed procedure for degenerative lumbar spinal disease (3,5). Unlike the PLIF technique, the anterior approach does not require access through the spinal canal with retraction of the nerve roots and cauda equina.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

L5/S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion technique

Mobbs¹,

Lennox²,

Ho³

et al. 2017

J. Spine Surg.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

L5/S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion technique

Mobbs¹,

Lennox²,

Ho³

et al. 2017

J. Spine Surg.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[5][6][7] Lumbar interbody fusion can have three main approaches: anterior, lateral, and posterior. 8,9 Posterior approach techniques that use an interbody cage include transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior transforaminal interbody fusion (PLIF). 1,10,11 The former entails removal of the upper facet joint of the lower vertebra and the lower facet joint of the upper vertebra of the level to be treated, permitting access to the intervertebral foramen, through which the cage will be placed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,12,13 The PLIF technique involves a laminotomy that allows exposure of the intervertebral space to be treated, promoting access to the disc space by posterior approach and placement of an interbody device. 13,14 Although they are effective, provide a fusion rate similar to that of other interbody fusion techniques, 8,14 involve more extensive dissection of the muscles, longer surgical times, and greater blood loss in relation to other techniques, especially minimally invasive ones, their capacity to improve patient quality of life is often questioned. 15 For this reason, the objective of our study is to verify whether patients submitted to the PLIF or TLIF technique show improvement in the physical limitation and quality of life ODI and SF-36 questionnaires one year following surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improvement of Odi and Sf-36 Questionnaires Score After One Year of Plif or Tlif

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Determine if patients undergoing PLIF or TLIF surgery achieved improvement in the score of ODI and SF-36 questionnaires one year after surgery. Methods: Retrospective, single-center and non-randomized study. Patients submitted to spinal surgery using the PLIF or TLIF technique were included who completed the ODI and SF-36 questionnaires at least at the preoperative visit, and one year after surgery. Patients were divided into two groups, Group 1 (1 surgery level) and Group 2 (> 1 surgery level) and the ODI and SF-36 scores were compared for improvement. Results: The mean age was 47 years, with 52% of males (13/25) and mean of 5 days of hospital stay. Patients presented a significant improvement of ODI questionnaire (p<0.001) and in all SF-36 domains except in General Health State (p=0.58). In each group, it was observed that patients submitted to more than one level of surgery had greater blood loss and shorter hospital stay; however, the improvement obtained in ODI and SF-36 compared to the one-level surgery group was similar. Conclusions: PLIF and TLIF techniques are effective and lead to improved scores in ODI and SF-36 questionnaires one year after surgery. Patients undergoing two or more levels of instrumentation showed significant and similar improvement in ODI and SF-36. Level of evidence II, Single-Center Retrospective Study. RESUMOObjetivo: Verificar se pacientes submetidos à cirurgia de PLIF ou TLIF obtém melhora nos questionários ODI e SF-36. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo, de centro único, não randomizado. Foram incluídos pacientes submetidos à cirurgia da coluna vertebral com a utilização da técnica de PLIF ou TLIF, avaliados através dos questionários ODI e SF-36 pelo menos na visita pré-operatória e após um ano de pós--operatório. Os desfechos foram a pontuação no ODI e SF-36. Os pacientes foram, então, subdivididos em dois subgrupos: Grupo 1 (1 nível) e Grupo 2 (>1 nível de cirurgia), que foram comparados em relação a melhora na pontuação dos questionários ODI e SF-36. Resultados: A média de idade foi de 47 anos, com 52% de pacientes do sexo masculino (13/25) e média de cinco dias de internação. Os pacientes apresentaram melhora significativa nos questionários ODI (p<0,001) e em todos os domínios do exceto o Estado Geral de Saúde (p=0,58). Após a subdivisão nos grupos, foi visto que os pacientes submetidos a mais de um nível de cirurgia tiveram maior perda sanguínea e menor período de internação, no entanto, a melhora obtida nos questionários ODI e SF-36, comparados ao grupo com apenas um nível de cirurgia, foi semelhante. Conclusão: As cirurgias de PLIF ou TLIF são eficientes e causam melhora na pontuação dos questionários ODI e SF-36 após 1 ano de cirurgia. Pacientes submetidos a um nível de cirurgia ou a mais de um nível de cirurgia apresentaram melhora significativa e semelhante nos scores Estudo Retrospectivo, de Centro Único. Descritores: Coluna Vertebral/Cirurgia; Qualidade de Vida; Fusão Vertebral. RESUMEN Objetivo: Determinar si los pacientes sometidos a cirugía de PLIF o...

show abstract

Robotic‐Assisted Lumbar Fusion: An Effective Technique for Pedicle Screw Placement

Karasin¹,

Rizzo²,

Hardinge³

et al. 2022

AORN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Degenerative lumbar disease is a common condition in which progressive deterioration of the structures in the spine causes severely incapacitating pain and disability. Conservative management, including passive or active physical therapy, activity modification, and medications (eg, anti‐inflammatory medications, oral and injectable steroids, opioids), may provide relief. However, when conservative management is unsuccessful or patients experience symptoms for an extended period of time, they may require spine surgery. Surgeons use a variety of techniques to perform lumbar fusion procedures with instrumentation, including open, percutaneous, minimally invasive, and robotic‐assisted with navigation. The accuracy of pedicle‐screw placement varies according to the technique used, and accuracy rates are high after robotic‐assisted with navigation procedures. In addition, robotic‐assisted spine procedures result in fewer infections than non–robotic‐assisted spine procedures (P = .04). Perioperative nurses should understand basic lumbar spine anatomy, steps completed during robotic‐assisted lumbar spine surgery, and the nursing considerations for patients undergoing this type of procedure.

show abstract

A meta-analysis comparing ALIF, PLIF, TLIF and LLIF

Cited by 188 publications

References 23 publications

L5/S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion technique

L5/S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion technique

Improvement of Odi and Sf-36 Questionnaires Score After One Year of Plif or Tlif

Robotic‐Assisted Lumbar Fusion: An Effective Technique for Pedicle Screw Placement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About