scholarly journals Transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion as operative treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, a retrospective case series

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 64-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.L. de Kunder ◽  
K. Rijkers ◽  
W.L.W. van Hemert ◽  
P.C.P.H. Willems ◽  
M.P. ter Laak - Poort ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Operative Treatment ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Retrospective Case Series ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

scholarly journals Is Routine Use of Drain Really Necessary for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery? A Retrospective Case Series with a Historical Control Group

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110018
Author(s):  
Hae-Dong Jang ◽  
Seong San Park ◽  
Kyungbum Kim ◽  
Eung-Ha Kim ◽  
Jae Chul Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Neurological Deficits ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Hematoma Evacuation ◽  
Additional Surgery ◽  
Drain Group

Study Design: A retrospective case-control study. Objectives: The usefulness of a drain in spinal surgery has always been controversial. The purposes of this study were to determine the incidence of hematoma-related complications after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) without a drain and to evaluate its usefulness. Methods: We included 347 consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar disease who underwent single- or double-level PLIF. The participants were divided into 2 groups by the use of a drain or not; drain group and no-drain group. Results: In 165 cases of PLIF without drain, there was neither a newly developed neurological deficit due to hematoma nor reoperation for hematoma evacuation. In the no-drain group, there were 5 (3.0%) patients who suffered from surgical site infection (SSI), all superficial, and 17 (10.3%) patients who complained of postoperative transient recurred leg pain, all treated conservatively. Days from surgery to ambulation and length of hospital stay (LOS) of the no-drain group were faster than those of the drain group ( P < 0.001). In a multiple regression analysis, a drain insertion was found to have a significant effect on the delayed ambulation and increased LOS. No significant differences existed between the 2 groups in additional surgery for hematoma evacuation, or SSI. Conclusions: No hematoma-related neurological deficits or reoperations caused by epidural hematoma and SSI were observed in the no-drain group. The no-drain group did not show significantly more frequent postoperative complications than the drain use group, hence the routine insertion of a drain following PLIF should be reconsidered carefully.

scholarly journals Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) in the management of degenerative scoliosis: a retrospective case series

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 610-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos N. Paterakis ◽  
Alexandros G. Brotis ◽  
Athanasios Paschalis ◽  
Alkiviadis Tzannis ◽  
Konstantinos N. Fountas
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Scoliosis ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Retrospective Case Series

scholarly journals 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

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0245963
Author(s):  
Inge J. M. H. Caelers ◽  
Suzanne L. de Kunder ◽  
Kim Rijkers ◽  
Wouter L. W. van Hemert ◽  
Rob A. de Bie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document