Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
KMID : 1189320190130060904
Asian Spine Journal
2019 Volume.13 No. 6 p.904 ~ p.912
Changes in Sagittal Alignment Following Short-Level Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison between Posterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions
Nakashima Hiroaki

Kanemura Tokumi
Satake Kotaro
Ishikawa Yoshimoto
Ouchida Jun
Segi Naoki
Yamaguchi Hidetoshi
Imagama Shiro
Abstract
Study Design: Retrospective case-control study.

Purpose: We aimed to compare radiologic outcomes between posterior (PLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in short-level spinal fusion surgeries.

Overview of Literature: Although LLIF enables surgeons to insert large lordotic cages, it is unknown whether LLIF more effectively corrects local and global sagittal alignments compared with PLIF in short-level spinal fusion surgeries.

Methods: Radiographic data acquired from patients with lumbar interbody fusion (¡Â3 levels) using PLIF or LLIF for degenerative lumbar diseases were analyzed. The following radiographic parameters were evaluated preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively: segmental lordotic angle, disk height, lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), C7 sagittal vertical axis, and thoracic kyphosis (TK).

Results: In total, 144 patients with PLIF (193 fused levels) and 101 with LLIF (159 fused levels) were included. Patients¡¯ backgrounds and preoperative radiographic parameters for any level of fusion did not differ significantly between PLIF and LLIF procedures. The LLIF group exhibited significantly greater changes at 1-level fusion compared to the PLIF group in the parameters of segmental lordotic angle (5.1¡Æ¡¾5.8¡Æ vs. 2.1¡Æ¡¾5.0¡Æ, p<0.001), disk height (4.2¡¾2.3 mm vs. 2.2¡¾2.0 mm, p<0.001), LL (7.8¡Æ¡¾7.6¡Æ vs. 3.9¡Æ¡¾8.6¡Æ, p=0.004), and PI?LL (?6.9¡Æ¡¾6.8¡Æ vs. ?3.6¡Æ¡¾10.1¡Æ, p=0.03). While, a similar trend was observed regarding 2-level fusion, significantly greater changes were only observed in LL (12.1¡Æ¡¾11.1¡Æ vs. 4.2¡Æ¡¾9.1¡Æ, p=0.047) and PI?LL (?11.2¡Æ¡¾11.3¡Æ vs. ?3.0¡Æ¡¾9.3¡Æ, p=0.043), PT (?6.4¡Æ¡¾4.9¡Æ vs. ?2.5¡Æ¡¾5.3¡Æ, p=0.049) and TK (7.8¡Æ¡¾11.8¡Æ vs. ?0.3¡Æ¡¾9.7¡Æ, p=0.047) in the LLIF group at 3-level fusion.

Conclusions: LLIF provides significantly better local sagittal alignment than PLIF in 1- or 2-level fusion cases and improves spinopelvic alignment and local alignment for 3-level fusion cases. Thus, LLIF was demonstrated to be a useful lumbar interbody fusion technique, constituting a powerful tool for achieving sagittal realignment with minimal surgical invasiveness.
KEYWORD
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion, Posterior lumbar interbody fusion, Global sagittal alignment, Local sagittal alignment, Disc height, Lumbar lordosis
FullTexts / Linksout information
 
Listed journal information
KoreaMed