Comparison of Intraoperative Blood Loss, Operative Time, and Complications of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) and Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) in Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disorders
Keywords:
degenerative spine disorders, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, blood loss, operative time, complicationAbstract
Objective: Our study aims to compare blood loss, operative time, and complication rate between patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorders underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods: A retrospective data were collected from medical records of patients with lumbar spondylosis underwent TLIF or 1-3 level PLF by a single surgeon from 1 July 2017 to 31 August 2020. Demographic data, operative time, estimated intraoperative blood loss and complications were collected. Estimated blood loss among TLIF and PLF group was analyzed and compared using independent t test. Complication rate between these two groups was also compared by using chi-square test. Alpha level was accepted at p value < .05
Results: Sixty-six patients were included in this study, 30 in TLIF group and 36 in PLF group, with mean age of 58.35 years. There was no significant difference in patients’ baseline characteristics such as age, gender, BMI, comorbidity, and diagnosis. Difference in level of fusion was noted between both groups. From our statistical analysis, there was no difference in intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and complication rate between these 2 groups.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference in term of intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and complication rate between patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorders underwent treatment with TLIF and PLF.
References
2. Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, et al. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine. 2005; 30: 1441-5; discussion 1446-7.
3. Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S, et al.: Prevalence of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and its association with physical performance in a population-based cohort in Japan: The Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20(10): 1103-1108.22796511
4. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(8): 794-810.
5. Garfin SR, Eismont FJ, Bell GR, et al. Rothman-Simeone and Herkowitz’s The Spine. 2 vols. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier, Inc. 2018.
6. Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, et al. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997; 22(24): 2807-12.
7. Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, et al. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(7): 726-33.
8. Jagannathan J, Sansur CA, Oskouian RJ Jr, et al. Radiographic restoration of lumbar alignment after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 2009; 64(5): 955-63.
9. Isaacs RE, Sembrano JN, Tohmeh AG, et al. Two-Year Comparative Outcomes of MIS Lateral and MIS Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Part II: Radiographic Findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41 Suppl 8: S133-44.
10. Levin JM, Tanenbaum JE, Steinmetz MP, et al. Posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2018; 18(6): 1088-98.
11. Høy K, Bünger C, Niederman B, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(9): 2022-9.
12. วรัท ทรรศนะวิภาส. The textbook of spine by SST: ตำรากระดูกสันหลัง เล่ม1-2. กรุงเทพฯ: ราชวิทยาลัยแพทย์ออร์โธปิดิกส์แห่งประเทศไทย; 2556.
13. Bible JE, Mirza M, Knaub MA. Blood-loss Management in Spine Surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018; 26(2): 35-44.
14. Ghasemi AA. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis: an attempt to evaluate the superiority of one method over the other. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016; 150: 1–5.
15. Bernard R. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 5th ed. Duxbery: Thomson learning, 308. 2000
16. Ngamjarus C, Chongsuvivatwong V. n4Studies: Sample Size Calculation for an Epidemiological Study on a Smart Device. Siriraj Med J. 2016; 68(3): 160-70.
17. Liu J, Deng H, Long X, et al. A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2016; 25(5): 1575-80.
18. Pennington Z, Ehresman J, Molina CA, et al. A novel predictive model of intraoperative blood loss in patients undergoing elective lumbar surgery for degenerative pathologies. Spine J. 2020; 20(12): 1976-85.
19. Aoude A, Nooh A, Fortin M, et al. Incidence, Predictors, and Postoperative Complications of Blood Transfusion in Thoracic and Lumbar Fusion Surgery: An Analysis of 13,695 Patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. Global Spine Journal. 2016; 6(8): 756-64.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
ลิขสิทธิ์บทความเป็นของผู้เขียนบทความ แต่หากผลงานของท่านได้รับการพิจารณาตีพิมพ์ลงวารสารแพทย์เขต 4-5 จะคงไว้ซึ่งสิทธิ์ในการตีพิมพ์ครั้งแรกด้วยเหตุที่บทความจะปรากฎในวารสารที่เข้าถึงได้ จึงอนุญาตให้นำบทความในวารสารไปใช้ประโยชน์ได้ในเชิงวิชาการโดยจำเป็นต้องมีการอ้างอิงถึงชื่อวารสารอย่างถูกต้อง แต่ไม่อนุญาตให้นำไปใช้ในเชิงพาณิชย์
