Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Implications of sagittal alignment and complication profile with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior posterior lumbar fusion.
Ahlquist, Seth; Thommen, Rachel; Park, Howard Y; Sheppard, William; James, Kevin; Lord, Elizabeth; Shamie, Arya N; Park, Don Y.
Afiliação
  • Ahlquist S; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
  • Thommen R; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
  • Park HY; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
  • Sheppard W; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
  • James K; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
  • Lord E; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
  • Shamie AN; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
  • Park DY; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
J Spine Surg ; 6(4): 659-669, 2020 Dec.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33447668
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is commonly utilized in lumbar degenerative pathologies. Standalone ALIF (ST-ALIF) systems were developed to avoid added morbidity, surgical time, and cost of anterior and posterior fusion (APF). Controversy exists in the literature about which of these two techniques yields superior clinical and radiographic outcomes, and few studies have directly compared them. This study seeks to compare ST-ALIF and APF in terms of sagittal correction and surgical complications.

METHODS:

Ninty-two consecutive ALIF cases performed from 2013-2018 were retrospectively reviewed and separated into 2 groups. Radiographic measurements were performed on pre- and post-operative radiographs, including segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL). Surgical complications were determined. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test of homogeneity, Fisher's exact test, and independent sample t-test. Comparisons between groups were deemed statistically significant at the P<0.05 threshold.

RESULTS:

Fifty-seven ST-ALIF, 35 APF were identified. There were no differences in age, gender, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), preoperative diagnosis, or surgical level between the 2 cohorts. Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) was utilized in 24.6% of ST-ALIF versus none of APF (P=0.001). No differences were detected in SL, LL, and PI-LL mismatch. ST-ALIF cohort had significantly greater risk of subsidence and revision surgery versus APF (12.3% vs. 0%, RD 95% CI 3.8-20.8%, P=0.042). Recurrent spondylolisthesis occurred in 5 ST-ALIF cases, 3 cases with implant failure, and 2 nonunions versus none in the APF group.

CONCLUSIONS:

ST-ALIF was associated with significantly greater subsidence and revision surgery versus APF. Careful patient selection is paramount when considering ST-ALIF. The potential for revision surgery may offset the potential benefit in avoiding posterior fusion. Despite the greater risk of subsidence, sagittal alignment was not significantly affected.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article