Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. METHODS: Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. RESULTS: Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Historical Overview and a Future Perspective.

: In this historical study we present an overview of lumbar interbody fusion surgery, which is one of the most commonly performed instrumented spinal fusion surgeries. The present article focuses on the history of lumbar interbody fusion surgery, starting from the foundation which was laid in the 19th and 20th century until today. The development of material and techniques evolved from simple wiring to the combination of transforaminal interbody fusion with polyether ether ketone cages and pedicle screw fixation with poly axial screws. The possibilities of instrumented spinal fusion grew during the past 100 years, and a considerable increase in instrumented spinal surgery was seen over the past decades. Today, gain lies in perfection of techniques and deliberate indication and development of guidelines. Therefore, more standardized studies on instrumented spinal surgery are needed to be done and techniques should be personalized on the patients' specific needs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are both frequently used as a surgical treatment for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Because of the unilateral transforaminal route to the intervertebral space used in TLIF, as opposed to the bilateral route used in PLIF, TLIF could be associated with fewer complications, shorter duration of surgery, and less blood loss, whereas the effectiveness of both techniques on back or leg pain is equal. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of both TLIF and PLIF in reducing disability, and to compare the intra- and postoperative complications of both techniques in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were carried out. METHODS: We conducted a Medline (using PubMed), Embase (using Ovid), Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination search for studies reporting TLIF, PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis and disability, pain, complications, duration of surgery, and estimated blood loss. A meta-analysis was performed to compute pooled estimates of the differences between TLIF and PLIF. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group. RESULTS: A total of 192 studies were identified; nine studies were included (one randomized controlled trial and eight case series), including 990 patients (450 TLIF and 540 PLIF). The pooled mean difference in postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores between TLIF and PLIF was -3.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] -4.72 to -2.20, p≤.001). The pooled mean difference in the postoperative VAS scores was -0.05 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.09, p=.480). The overall complication rate was 8.7% (range 0%-25%) for TLIF and 17.0% (range 4.7-28.8%) for PLIF; the pooled odds ratio was 0.47 (95% CI 0.28-0.81, p=.006). The average duration of surgery was 169 minutes for TLIF and 190 minutes for PLIF (mean difference -20.1, 95% CI -33.5 to -6.6, p=.003). The estimated blood loss was 350 mL for TLIF and 418 mL for PLIF (mean difference -43.9 mL, 95% CI -71.2 to -16.6, p=.002). CONCLUSIONS: TLIF has advantages over PLIF in the complication rate, blood loss, and operation duration. The clinical outcome is similar, with a slightly lower postoperative ODI score for TLIF.

A protocol of a randomized controlled multicenter trial for surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: the Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT).

BACKGROUND: With a steep increase in the number of instrumented spinal fusion procedures, there is a need for comparative data to develop evidence based treatment recommendations. Currently, the available data on cost and clinical effectiveness of the two most frequently performed surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), are not sufficient. Therefore, current guidelines do not advise which is the most appropriate surgical treatment strategy for these patients. Non-randomized studies comparing TLIF and PLIF moreover suggest that TLIF is associated with fewer complications, less blood loss, shorter surgical time and hospital duration. TLIF may therefore be more cost-effective. The results of this study will provide knowledge on short- and long-term clinical and economical effects of TLIF and PLIF procedures, which will lead to recommendations for treating patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Multicenter blinded Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT; blinding for the patient and statistician, not for the clinician and researcher). A total of 144 patients over 18 years old with symptomatic single level lumbar degenerative, isthmic or iatrogenic spondylolisthesis whom are candidates for LIF (lumbar interbody fusion) surgery through a posterior approach will be randomly allocated to TLIF or PLIF. The study will consist of three parts: 1) a clinical effectiveness study, 2) a cost-effectiveness study, and 3) a process evaluation. The primary clinical outcome measures are: change in disability measured with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and change in quality adjusted life years (QALY) measured with EQ-5D-5L. Secondary clinical outcome measures are: Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36), VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), complications, productivity related costs (iPCQ) and medical costs (iMCQ). Measurements will be carried out at five fixed time points (pre-operatively and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months). DISCUSSION: It is hypothesized that TLIF, compared to PLIF, has similar clinical outcome or is possibly better in reducing disability. Moreover, direct medical costs are expected to be lower due to less surgical morbidity, shorter hospital stay and shorter surgical time. Indirect costs are assumed to be lower for TLIF as well, because we suspect less working days are lost. Currently, prospective data comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of both techniques are not available. Therefore, in clinical practice both techniques are used and the choice for technique is greatly based on surgeon's preference. The demand for spinal fusion surgery has risen steeply over the last 10 years and is expected to increase even further in the near future. As a result, the burden on society (and the working population) will increase. In case our hypothesis is confirmed, treatment guidelines will be adapted, and TLIF will be recommended as first choice surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Ultimately this will lead to reduction of (direct and indirect) costs and better clinical outcome for spondylolisthesis patients eligible for instrumented spinal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Registry, number 5722 (registration date March 30, 2016).