scholarly journals Is there a variance in complication types associated with ALIF approaches? A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aoife Feeley ◽  
Iain Feeley ◽  
Kevin Clesham ◽  
Joseph Butler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Transperitoneal Approach ◽  
Visceral Injury ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Vessel Injury ◽  
Approach Method ◽  
Hospital Stays

Abstract Purpose Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established alternative to posterior-based interbody fusion techniques, with approach variations, such as retroperitoneal, transperitoneal, open, and laparoscopic well described. Variable rates of complications for each approach have been enumerated in the literature. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the comparative rates of complications across approach type. Methods A systematic review of search databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and OVID Medline was made to identify studies related to complication-associated ALIF. PRISMA guidelines were utilised for this review. Meta-analysis was used to compare intraoperative and postoperative complications with ALIF for each approach. Results A total of 4575 studies were identified, with 5728 patients across 31 studies included for review following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis demonstrated the transperitoneal approach resulted in higher rates of retrograde ejaculation (RE) (p < 0.001; CI = 0.05–0.21) and overall rates of complications (p = 0.05; CI = 0.00–0.23). Rates of RE were higher at the L5/S1 intervertebral level. Rates of vessel injury were not significantly higher in either approach method (p = 0.89; CI =  − 0.04–0.07). Rates of visceral injury did not appear to be related to approach method. Laparoscopic approaches resulted in shorter inpatient stays (p = 0.01). Conclusion Despite the transperitoneal approach being comparatively underpowered, its use appears to result in a significantly higher rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, although confounders including use of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and spinal level should be considered. Laparoscopic approaches resulted in shorter hospital stays; however, its steep learning curve and longer operative time have deterred surgeons from its widespread adaptation.

scholarly journals 1046 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approaches: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Feeley ◽  
I Feeley ◽  
K Clesham ◽  
J Butler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transperitoneal Approach ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Vessel Injury ◽  
Hospital Stays

Abstract Aim Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established alternative to posterior-based interbody fusion techniques, with approach variations, such as retroperitoneal; transperitoneal; open; and laparoscopic well described. Variable rates of complications for each approach have been enumerated in the literature. We aim to elucidate the comparative rates of complications across approach type. Method A systematic review of the search databases Pubmed; google scholar; and OVID Medline was made in November 2020 to identify studies related to complications associated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. PRISMA guidelines were utilised for this review. Studies eligible for inclusion were agreed by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was used to compare intra- and postoperative complications with ALIF for each approach. Results 4575 studies were identified, with 5728 patients across 31 studies included for review following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis demonstrated the transperitoneal approach resulted in higher rates of Retrograde Ejaculation (RE) (p &lt; 0.001; CI = 0.05-0.21) and overall rates of complications (p = 0.05; CI = 0.00-0.23). Rates of RE were higher at the L5/S1 intervertebral level. Rates of vessel injury were not significantly higher in either approach method (p = 0.89; CI=-0.04-0.07). Laparoscopic approaches resulted in shorter inpatient stays (p = 0.01). Conclusions Despite the transperitoneal approach being comparatively underpowered, its use appears to result in a significantly higher rate of intra- and postoperative complications, although confounders including use of BMP and spinal level should be considered. Laparoscopic approaches resulted in shorter hospital stays, however its steep learning curve and longer operative time have deterred surgeons from its widespread adaptation.

scholarly journals Spinal anesthesia in awake surgical procedures of the lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3709 patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. E7
Author(s):  
Roberto J. Perez-Roman ◽  
Vaidya Govindarajan ◽  
Jean-Paul Bryant ◽  
Michael Y. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Awake Surgery

OBJECTIVE Awake surgery has previously been found to improve patient outcomes postoperatively in a variety of procedures. Recently, multiple groups have investigated the utility of this modality for use in spine surgery. However, few current meta-analyses exist comparing patient outcomes in awake spinal anesthesia with those in general anesthesia. Therefore, the authors sought to present an updated systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the utility of spinal anesthesia relative to general anesthesia in lumbar procedures. METHODS Following a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases, 14 clinical studies were included in our final qualitative and quantitative analyses. Of these studies, 5 investigated spinal anesthesia in lumbar discectomy, 4 discussed lumbar laminectomy, and 2 examined interbody fusion procedures. One study investigated combined lumbar decompression and fusion or decompression alone. Two studies investigated patients who underwent discectomy and laminectomy, and 1 study investigated a series of patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, or decompression. Odds ratios, mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate. RESULTS A meta-analysis of the total anesthesia time showed that time was significantly less in patients who received spinal anesthesia for both lumbar discectomies (MD −26.53, 95% CI −38.16 to −14.89; p = 0.00001) and lumbar laminectomies (MD −11.21, 95% CI −19.66 to −2.75; p = 0.009). Additionally, the operative time was significantly shorter in patients who underwent spinal anesthesia (MD −14.94, 95% CI −20.43 to −9.45; p < 0.00001). Similarly, when analyzing overall postoperative complication rates, patients who received spinal anesthesia were significantly less likely to experience postoperative complications (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16–0.53; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, patients who received spinal anesthesia had significantly lower postoperative pain scores (MD −2.80, 95% CI −4.55 to −1.06; p = 0.002). An identical trend was seen when patients were stratified by lumbar procedures. Patients who received spinal anesthesia were significantly less likely to require postoperative analgesia (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02–0.25; p < 0.0001) and had a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (MD −0.16, 95% CI −0.29 to −0.03; p = 0.02) and intraoperative blood loss (MD −52.36, 95% CI −81.55 to −23.17; p = 0.0004). Finally, the analysis showed that spinal anesthesia cost significantly less than general anesthesia (MD −226.14, 95% CI −324.73 to −127.55; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS This review has demonstrated the varying benefits of spinal anesthesia in awake spine surgery relative to general anesthesia in patients who underwent various lumbar procedures. The analysis has shown that spinal anesthesia may offer some benefits when compared with general anesthesia, including reduction in the duration of anesthesia, operative time, total cost, and postoperative complications. Large prospective trials will elucidate the true role of this modality in spine surgery.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822097914
Author(s):  
Lei Zhu ◽  
Jun-Wu Wang ◽  
Liang Zhang ◽  
Xin-Min Feng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: To evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes, and perioperative complications of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of related studies reporting outcomes of OLIF for ASD. The clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The radiographic parameters were evaluated by sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), Cobb angle and fusion rate. A random effects model and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were performed to investigate the results. Results: A total of 16 studies involving 519 patients were included in the present study. The mean difference of VAS-back score, VAS-leg score and ODI score before and after surgery was 5.1, 5.0 and 32.3 respectively. The mean correction of LL was 20.6°, with an average of 6.9° per level and the mean correction of Cobb was 16.4°, with an average of 4.7° per level. The mean correction of SVA, PT, SS, TK and PI-LL was 59.3 mm, 11.7°, 6.9°, 9.4° and 20.6° respectively. The mean fusion rate was 94.1%. The incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications was 4.9% and 29.6% respectively. Conclusions: OLIF is an effective and safe surgery method in the treatment of mild or moderate ASD and it has advantages in less intraoperative blood loss and lower perioperative complications.

scholarly journals Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110164
Author(s):  
Elsayed Said ◽  
Mohamed E. Abdel-Wanis ◽  
Mohamed Ameen ◽  
Ali A. Sayed ◽  
Khaled H. Mosallam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: Arthrodesis has been a valid treatment option for spinal diseases, including spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterolateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion are amongst the most used fusion techniques. Previous reports comparing both methods have been contradictory. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish substantial evidence on which fusion method would achieve better outcomes. Methods: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes of interest between posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We extracted data on clinical outcome, complication rate, revision rate, fusion rate, operation time, and blood loss. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We retrieved 8 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, with a total of 616 patients (308 PLF, 308 PLIF). The results of our analysis revealed that patients who underwent PLIF had significantly higher fusion rates. No statistically significant difference was identified in terms of clinical outcomes, complication rates, revision rates, operation time or blood loss. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comparison between PLF and PLIF based on RCTs. Although PLIF had higher fusion rates, both fusion methods achieve similar clinical outcomes with equal complication rate, revision rate, operation time and blood loss at 1-year minimum follow-up.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Complications Following Mastectomy and Prosthetic Reconstruction in Patients With and Without Prior Breast Augmentation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Chicco ◽  
Ali R Ahmadi ◽  
Hsu-Tang Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Skin Flap ◽  
Prosthetic Reconstruction ◽  
Hematoma Formation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Nipple Sparing Mastectomy ◽  
Nipple Sparing ◽  
Early Late

Abstract Background There is limited evidence available in literature with regard to the complication profile of mastectomy and immediate prosthetic reconstruction in augmented patients. Objectives The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare postoperative complications between women with versus without prior augmentation undergoing skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthetic reconstruction. Methods A systematic search was conducted in February 2020 for studies comparing women with versus without prior augmentation undergoing skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthetic reconstruction with documentation of postoperative complications. Outcomes analyzed included early, late and overall complications. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained through meta-analysis. Results Our meta-analysis, which included six studies comparing 241 breasts with prior augmentation and 1441 without, demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups in rates of early (36.7% vs. 24.8%; OR=1.57, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.64; P=0.09), late (10.1% vs. 19.9%; OR=0.53, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.89; P=0.57) and overall complications (36.5% vs. 31.2%; OR=1.23, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.00; P=0.40). Subgroup analysis showed a significantly higher rate of hematoma formation in the augmented group (3.39% versus 2.15%; OR=2.68, 95% CI 1.00 to 7.16; P=0.05), but no difference in rates of seroma, infection, mastectomy skin flap necrosis and prosthesis loss. Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that prior augmentation does not significantly increase overall postoperative complications in women undergoing skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthetic reconstruction. However, the significantly higher rate of hematoma formation in augmented patients warrants further investigation and preoperative discussion.

665 PROPHYLACTIC THORACIC DUCT OBSTRUCTION DURING ESOPHAGECTOMY: THE IMPACT ON PERIOPERATIVE RISKS AND LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Santos ◽  
Laura Santos ◽  
Leticia Datrino ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca Tristão ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Thoracic Duct ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Thoracic Duct Ligation ◽  
Duct Ligation

Abstract   During esophagectomy for cancer, there is no consensus if prophylactic thoracic duct ligation (TDL), with or without thoracic duct resection (TDR), could influence the perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared patients who went through esophagectomy associated or not to ligation or resection of the thoracic duct. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare thoracic duct ligation, with or without resection, and non-thoracic duct ligation; (2) involve adult patients with esophageal cancer; (3) articles that analyses the outcomes—perioperative complications, perioperative mortality, chylothorax development and overall survival; (4) only clinical trials and cohort were accepted. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was used, and random-effects model was performed. Results Fifteen articles were selected, comprising 6,249 patients. TDL did not reduce the risk for chylothorax (Risk difference [RD]: -0.01; 95%CI: −0.02, 0.00). Also, TDL did not influence the risk for complications (RD: -0.02; 95%CI: −0.11, 0.07); mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.00); and reoperation rate (RD: -0.01; 95%CI: −0.02, 0.00). TDR was associated with higher risk for postoperative complications (RD: 0.1; 95%CI 0.00, 0.19); chylothorax (RD: 0.02; 95%CI 0.00, 0.03). Both TDL and TDR did not influence the overall survival rate (TDL: HR: 1.17; 95%CI: 0.86, 1.48; and TDR: HR: 1.16; 95%CI: 0.8, 1.51). Conclusion Thoracic duct obliteration with or without its resection during esophagectomy does not change long term survival. Nonetheless, TDR increased the risk for postoperative complications and chylothorax.

Is L5/S1 interbody fusion necessary in long-segment surgery for adult degenerative scoliosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbosacral Junction ◽  
Pelvic Fixation ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

OBJECTIVE There is no consensus regarding the best surgical strategy at the lumbosacral junction (LSJ) in long constructs for adult spinal deformity (ASD). The use of interbody fusion (IF) has been advocated to increase fusion rates, with additional pelvic fixation (PF) typically recommended. The actual benefit of IF even when extending to the pelvis, however, has not been vigorously analyzed. The goal of this work was to better understand the role of IF, specifically with respect to arthrodesis, when extending long constructs to the ilium. METHODS A systematic review of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed to identify the relevant studies in English, addressing the management of LSJ in long constructs (defined as ≥ 5 levels) in ASD. The search terms used were as follows: “Lumbosacral Junction,” “Long Constructs,” “Long Fusion to the Sacrum,” “Sacropelvic Fixation,” “Interbody Fusion,” and “Iliac Screw.” The authors excluded technical notes, case reports, literature reviews, and cadaveric studies; pediatric populations; pathologies different from ASD; studies not using conventional techniques; and studies focused only on alignment of different levels. RESULTS The PRISMA protocol was used. The authors found 12 retrospective clinical studies with a total of 1216 patients who were sorted into 3 different categories: group 1, using PF or not (n = 6); group 2, using PF with or without IF (n = 5); and group 3, from 1 study comparing anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Five studies in group 1 and 4 in group 2 had pseudarthrosis rate as primary outcome and were selected for a quantitative analysis. Forest plots were used to display the risk ratio, and funnel plots were used to look at the risk of publication bias. The summary risk ratios were 0.36 (0.23–0.57, p < 0.001) and 1.03 (0.54–1.96, p = 0.94) for the PF and IF, respectively; there is a protective effect of overall pseudarthrosis for using PF in long constructs for ASD surgeries, but not for using IF. CONCLUSIONS The long-held contention that L5/S1 IF is always advantageous in long-construct deformity surgery is not supported by the current literature. Based on the findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis, PF with or without additional L5/S1 interbody grafting demonstrates similar overall construct pseudarthrosis rates. The added risk and costs associated with IF, therefore, should be more closely considered on a case-by-case basis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document