Top

Published in:

01-02-2009 | Original Article

Clinical and radiological outcome of anterior–posterior fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective comparative study of 133 patients

Authors: Antonio A. Faundez, James D. Schwender, Yair Safriel, Thomas J. Gilbert, Amir A. Mehbod, Francis Denis, Ensor E. Transfeldt, Jill M. Wroblewski

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 2/2009

Abstract

Abundant data are available for direct anterior/posterior spine fusion (APF) and some for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), but only few studies from one institution compares the two techniques. One-hundred and thirty-three patients were retrospectively analyzed, 68 having APF and 65 having TLIF. All patients had symptomatic disc degeneration of the lumbar spine. Only those with one or two-level surgeries were included. Clinical chart and radiologic reviews were done, fusion solidity assessed, and functional outcomes determined by pre- and postoperative SF-36 and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and a satisfaction questionnaire. The minimum follow-up was 24 months. The mean operating room time and hospital length of stay were less in the TLIF group. The blood loss was slightly less in the TLIF group (409 vs. 480 cc.). Intra-operative complications were higher in the APF group, mostly due to vein lacerations in the anterior retroperitoneal approach. Postoperative complications were higher in the TLIF group due to graft material extruding against the nerve root or wound drainage. The pseudarthrosis rate was statistically equal (APF 17.6% and TLIF 23.1%) and was higher than most published reports. Significant improvements were noted in both groups for the SF-36 questionnaires. The mean ODI scores at follow-up were 33.5 for the APF and 39.5 for the TLIF group. The patient satisfaction rate was equal for the two groups.

Albert TJ, Pinto M, Denis F (2000) Management of symptomatic lumbar pseudarthrosis with anteroposterior fusion. A functional and radiographic outcome study. Spine 25:123–129. doi:10.1097/00007632-200001010-00021 (discussion 130)PubMedCrossRef

Barnes B, Rodts GE Jr, Haid RW Jr, Subach BR, McLaughlin MR (2002) Allograft implants for posterior lumbar interbody fusion: results comparing cylindrical dowels and impacted wedges. Neurosurgery 51:1191–1198. doi:10.1097/00006123-200211000-00014 (discussion 1198)PubMedCrossRef

Blumenthal SL, Gill K (1993) Can lumbar spine radiographs accurately determine fusion in postoperative patients? Correlation of routine radiographs with a second surgical look at lumbar fusions. Spine 18:1186–1189PubMed

Brau SA, Delamarter RB, Schiffman ML, Williams LA, Watkins RG (2004) Vascular injury during anterior lumbar surgery. Spine J 4:409–412. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2003.12.003 PubMedCrossRef

Brodsky AE, Kovalsky ES, Khalil MA (1991) Correlation of radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical exploration. Spine 16:S261–S265. doi:10.1097/00007632-199106001-00017 PubMedCrossRef

Christensen FB, Bunger CE (1997) Retrograde ejaculation after retroperitoneal lower lumbar interbody fusion. Int Orthop 21:176–180. doi:10.1007/s002640050145 PubMedCrossRef

Christensen FB, Laursen M, Gelineck J, Eiskjaer SP, Thomsen K, Bunger CE (2001) Interobserver and intraobserver agreement of radiograph interpretation with and without pedicle screw implants: the need for a detailed classification system in posterolateral spinal fusion. Spine 26:538–543. doi:10.1097/00007632-200103010-00018 (discussion 543–534)PubMedCrossRef

Closkey RF, Parsons JR, Lee CK, Blacksin MF, Zimmerman MC (1993) Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine 18:1011–1015. doi:10.1097/00007632-199306150-00010 PubMedCrossRef

Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168PubMedCrossRef

10.

Deyo RA, Nachemson A, Mirza SK (2004) Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 350:722–726. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb031771 PubMedCrossRef

11.

Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, Yu LM, Barker K, Collins R (2005) Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ 330:1233. doi:10.1136/bmj.38441.620417.8F PubMedCrossRef

12.

Fraser RD (1995) Interbody, posterior, and combined lumbar fusions. Spine 20:167S–177S. doi:10.1097/00007632-199512151-00016 PubMedCrossRef

13.

Freeman BJ, Licina P, Mehdian SH (2000) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with instrumented postero-lateral fusion: 5-year results in 60 patients. Eur Spine J 9:42–46. doi:10.1007/s005860050007 PubMedCrossRef

14.

Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2001) 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 26:2521–2532. doi:10.1097/00007632-200112010-00002 (discussion 2532-2524)PubMedCrossRef

15.

Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27:1131–1141. doi:10.1097/00007632-200206010-00002 PubMedCrossRef

16.

Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J

17.

Harms J, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:88–99

18.

Hee HT, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME, Holt RT, Myers L (2001) Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord 14:533–540. doi:10.1097/00002517-200112000-00013 PubMedCrossRef

19.

Herkowitz HN, Sidhu KS (1995) Lumbar spine fusion in the treatment of degenerative conditions: current indications and recommendations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 3:123–135PubMed

20.

Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 26:567–571. doi:10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023 PubMedCrossRef

21.

Isiklar ZU, Lindsey RW, Coburn M (1996) Ureteral injury after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. A case report. Spine 21:2379–2382. doi:10.1097/00007632-199610150-00016 PubMedCrossRef

22.

Ivar Brox J, Sorensen R, Friis A, Nygaard O, Indahl A, Keller A et al (2003) Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine 28:1913–1921. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000083234.62751.7A CrossRef

23.

Javernick MA, Kuklo TR, Polly DW Jr (2003) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: unilateral versus bilateral disk removal—an in vivo study. Am J Orthop 32:344–348 (discussion 348)PubMed

24.

Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O’Brien MF, Smith DA (2002) Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:31–38PubMed

25.

McAfee PC, Lee GA, Fedder IL, Cunningham BW (2002) Anterior BAK instrumentation and fusion: complete versus partial discectomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 394:55–63. doi:10.1097/00003086-200201000-00007

26.

Molinari RW, Gerlinger T (2001) Functional outcomes of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in active-duty US servicemen: a comparison with nonoperative management. Spine J 1:215–224. doi:10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00015-8 PubMedCrossRef

27.

Moore KR, Pinto MR, Butler LM (2002) Degenerative disc disease treated with combined anterior and posterior arthrodesis and posterior instrumentation. Spine 27:1680–1686. doi:10.1097/00007632-200208010-00018 PubMedCrossRef

28.

Moskowitz A (2002) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Clin North Am 33:359–366. doi:10.1016/S0030-5898(01)00008-6 PubMedCrossRef

29.

Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T, Tamura Y, Chiba M, Sato K (1999) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 70:329–334PubMedCrossRef

30.

Oxland TR, Lund T (2000) Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: a literature review. Eur Spine J 9(suppl 1):S95–S101. doi:10.1007/PL00010028 PubMedCrossRef

31.

Rivero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J (2005) Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 330:1239. doi:10.1136/bmj.38441.429618.8F PubMedCrossRef

32.

Salehi SA, Tawk R, Ganju A, LaMarca F, Liu JC, Ondra SL (2004) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery 54:368–374. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000103493.25162.18 (discussion 374)PubMedCrossRef

33.

Schellhas KP, Pollei SR, Gundry CR, Heithoff KB (1996) Lumbar disc high-intensity zone. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging and discography. Spine 21:79–86. doi:10.1097/00007632-199601010-00018 PubMedCrossRef

34.

Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Bulsara KR, Thramann JJ (2006) Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior–posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:92–97. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000185277.14484.4e PubMedCrossRef

35.

Whitecloud TS III, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE (2001) Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior–posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord 14:100–103. doi:10.1097/00002517-200104000-00002 PubMedCrossRef

Title: Clinical and radiological outcome of anterior–posterior fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective comparative study of 133 patients
Authors: Antonio A. Faundez
James D. Schwender
Yair Safriel
Thomas J. Gilbert
Amir A. Mehbod
Francis Denis
Ensor E. Transfeldt
Jill M. Wroblewski
Publication date: 01-02-2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0845-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Clinical and radiological outcome of anterior–posterior fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective comparative study of 133 patients

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2009

Modic changes: “Age, si quid agis”

Three-dimensional analysis of cervical spine motion: reliability of a computer assisted magnetic tracking device compared to inclinometer

Two-level contiguous cervical disc disease treated with peek cages packed with demineralized bone matrix: results of 3-year follow-up

Anatomical study of axis for odontoid screw thickness, length, and angle

Assessment of lumbosacral kyphosis in spondylolisthesis: a computer-assisted reliability study of six measurement techniques

Reviewer’s comment concerning “Spinal fractures in patients with ankylosing spinal disorders: a systematic review of the literature on treatment, neurological status and complications” (L. A. Westerveld et al. Ms-no: ESJO-D-08-00152R1)