Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 14:9:829469.
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.829469. eCollection 2022.

Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kanthika Wasinpongwanich  1   2 , Tanawin Nopsopon  3 , Krit Pongpirul  2   3   4
Affiliations

Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kanthika Wasinpongwanich et al. Front Surg. .

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases.

Design: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2013 through December 2019.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral fusion (PLF) and/or other lumbar interbody fusion were included for the review.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval of fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complications in TLIF and other techniques for lumbar spinal diseases.

Results: Of 3,682 potential studies, 15 RCTs (915 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to other surgical techniques, TLIF had slightly lower fusion rate [RR = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.72-0.97), p = 0.02, I 2 = 0.0%] at 1-year follow-up whereas there was no difference on fusion rate at 2-year follow-up [RR = 1.06 (95% CI = 0.96-1.18), p = 0.27, I 2 = 69.0%]. The estimated RR of total adverse events [RR = 0.90 (95% CI = 0.59-1.38), p = 0.63, I 2 = 0.0%] was similar to no fusion, PLF, PLIF, and XLIF groups, and revision rate [RR = 0.78 (95% CI = 0.34-1.79), p = 0.56, I 2 = 39.0%] was similar to PLF and XLIF groups. TLIF had approximately half an hour more operative time than other techniques (no fusion, ALIF, PLF, PLIF, XLIF) [MD = 31.88 (95% CI = 5.33-58.44), p = 0.02, I 2 = 92.0%]. There was no significant difference between TLIF and other techniques in terms of blood loss (no fusion, PLIF, PLF) and clinical outcomes (PLF).

Conclusions: Besides fusion rate at 1-year follow-up and operative time, TLIF has a similar fusion rate, clinical outcomes, parameters concerning operation and complications to no fusion, PLF, and other interbody fusion (PLIF, ALIF, XLIF).

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020186858.

Keywords: lumbar disease; meta-analysis; spine fusion surgery; spondylolisthesis; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of this systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective studies. RCTs, randomized controlled trials.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The risk of bias of each included RCT. Low risk is presented as green dot, some concerns as yellow dot, and high risk as red dot.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot and tabulated data illustrated the RR for fusion rate at 1 year between TLIF, PLF, PLIF, and XLIF showing that other techniques had a better arm fusion rate at 1 year and were therefore superior to TLIF in this respect. CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot and tabulated data illustrated the RR for adverse events between TLIF, PLF, PLIF, XLIF, and no fusion showing that there was no significant difference in adverse events between procedures. CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, aftercare. J Neurosurg. (1953) 10:154–68. 10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harms J, Rolinger H. Die operative behandlung der spondylolisthese durch dorsale aufrichtung und ventrale verblockung [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. (1982) 120:343–7. 10.1055/s-2008-1051624 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg. (2002) 49:499–517. - PubMed
    1. Choy WJ, Abi-Hanna D, Cassar LP, Hardcastle P, Phan K, Mobbs RJ. History of integral fixation for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF): the hartshill horseshoe. World Neurosurg. (2019) 129:394–400. 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.06.134 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR. Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. (2006) 6:435–43. 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.012 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources