PLF+PS or ALIF+PS: which has a lower operative nonunion rate? Analysis of a cohort of 2,061 patients from a National Spine Registry
- PMID: 33640585
- DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.018
PLF+PS or ALIF+PS: which has a lower operative nonunion rate? Analysis of a cohort of 2,061 patients from a National Spine Registry
Abstract
Background context: Although fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar fusions with pedicle screws (PLF+PS) and anterior lumbar interbody fusions with pedicle screws (ALIF+PS) have been reported, there has been no consensus on superiority with respect to clinical outcome and nonunion rates. Most studies determine nonunion rates based on radiographic studies; however, many of these nonunions are asymptomatic and may not require reoperations. Hence, a potentially more clinically useful measure is the reoperation rate for symptomatic nonunions, which we term the operative nonunion rate.
Purpose: To determine if there is a difference in operative nonunion rates between PLF+PS versus ALIF+PS.
Study design: Retrospective cohort study.
Patient sample: Adult patients (≥18 years old) with the diagnosis of lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent primary elective PLF+PS and ALIF+PS for 1-level and 2-level fusions (L4-S1) between 2009 and 2018.
Outcome measures: Reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions (ie, operative nonunion rates).
Methods: Patients were followed until validated operative nonunions, membership termination, death, or 03/31/2019. Descriptive statistics and 2-year incidence rates for operative nonunions were calculated by fusion-level, fusion type, and levels fused. Time-dependent multivariable Cox-Proportional Hazards regression was used to evaluate operative nonunion rates with adjustment for covariates or risk change estimates more than 10%.
Results: We identified 2,061 patients (PLF+PS:1,491, ALIF+PS:570) with average follow-up time of 4.8 (±3.1) years and average time to operative nonunion of 1.3 (±1.2) yrs. Comparatively, unadjusted 1-level and 2-level incidence rates for operative nonunions were higher in PLF+PS versus ALIF+PS. For 1-level procedures these were 0.9% (95% CI=0.4-1.6) versus 0.6% (95% CI=0.1-2.1); 2-level, 2.0% (95% CI=0.8-4.0) versus 0.9% (95% CI=0.1-3.3). However, there were no observed significant differences in risks for operative nonunions in multivariable models comparing PLF+PS versus ALIF+PS (HR=0.3, 95% CI=0.1-1.1), 1-level versus 2-level fusions (HR=1.8, 95% CI=0.8-4.3), or by fusion level (L4-L5: HR=1.0, 95% CI=0.4-2.7; L5-S1: HR=2.0, 95% CI=0.7-5.4).
Conclusions: A large cohort of patients with lumbar fusions between L4 to S1 and an average follow-up of >4 years found that although there was a trend for higher operative nonunions in PLF+PS compared with ALIF+PS, this was not statistically significant. The role of spinal alignment was not investigated.
Keywords: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion; Nonunion; Operative Nonunion; Posterior lumbar fusion; Radiographic Nonunion; Spine Registry.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
PLF Versus PLIF and the Fate of L5-S1: Analysis of Operative Nonunion Rates Among 3065 Patients with Lumbar Fusions from a Regional Spine Registry.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021 May 15;46(10):E584-E593. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003840. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021. PMID: 33306615
-
Does the use of preoperative bisphosphonates in patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis affect lumbar fusion rates? Analysis from a national spine registry.Neurosurg Focus. 2020 Aug;49(2):E12. doi: 10.3171/2020.5.FOCUS20262. Neurosurg Focus. 2020. PMID: 32738794
-
Are there differences in the reoperation rates for operative adjacent-segment disease between ALIF+PS, PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, and LLIF+PS? An analysis of a cohort of 5291 patients.J Neurosurg Spine. 2024 Mar 8;40(6):733-740. doi: 10.3171/2023.12.SPINE231251. Print 2024 Jun 1. J Neurosurg Spine. 2024. PMID: 38457789
-
A systematic review of clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis.Spine J. 2018 Aug;18(8):1441-1454. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.04.022. Epub 2018 May 7. Spine J. 2018. PMID: 29746966
-
Posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spine J. 2018 Jun;18(6):1088-1098. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.01.028. Epub 2018 Feb 13. Spine J. 2018. PMID: 29452283
Cited by
-
ALIF vs. posterior fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: comparable efficacy but elevated risk of severe complications-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur Spine J. 2025 May 22. doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-08914-w. Online ahead of print. Eur Spine J. 2025. PMID: 40402235 Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources