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
- PMID: 38457789
- DOI: 10.3171/2023.12.SPINE231251
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
Abstract
Objective: Biomechanical factors in lumbar fusions accelerate the development of adjacent-segment disease (ASD). Stiffness in the fused segment increases motion in the adjacent levels, resulting in ASD. The objective of this study was to determine if there are differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (ALIF+PS), posterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (PLIF+PS), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (TLIF+PS), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (LLIF+PS).
Methods: A retrospective study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry identified an adult cohort (≥ 18 years old) with degenerative disc disease who underwent primary lumbar interbody fusions with pedicle screws between L3 to S1. Demographic and operative data were obtained from the registry, and chart review was used to document operative ASD. Patients were followed until operative ASD, membership termination, the end of study (March 31, 2022), or death. Operative ASD was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models.
Results: The final study population included 5291 patients with a mean ± SD age of 60.1 ± 12.1 years and a follow-up of 6.3 ± 3.8 years. There was a total of 443 operative ASD cases, with an overall incidence rate of reoperation for ASD of 8.37% (95% CI 7.6-9.2). The crude incidence of operative ASD at 5 years was the lowest in the ALIF+PS cohort (7.7%, 95% CI 6.3-9.4). In the adjusted models, the authors failed to detect a statistical difference in operative ASD between ALIF+PS (reference) versus PLIF+PS (HR 1.06 [0.79-1.44], p = 0.69) versus TLIF+PS (HR 1.03 [0.81-1.31], p = 0.83) versus LLIF+PS (HR 1.38 [0.77-2.46], p = 0.28).
Conclusions: In a large cohort of over 5000 patients with an average follow-up of > 6 years, the authors found no differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between ALIF+PS and PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, or LLIF+PS.
Keywords: ALIF; LLIF; PLIF; TLIF; anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws; degenerative; interbodies; lateral lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws; lumbar fusions; operative adjacent-segment disease; posterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws; reoperations; spine registry; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws.
Similar articles
-
Single-Level Anterolateral and Posterior Interbody Fusion Techniques are Associated With Equivalent Long-Term Lumbar Reoperations.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2024 Sep 1;49(17):1241-1247. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004898. Epub 2023 Dec 14. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2024. PMID: 38093607
-
The impact of interbody approach and lumbar level on segmental, adjacent, and sagittal alignment in degenerative lumbar pathology: a radiographic analysis six months following surgery.Spine J. 2022 Aug;22(8):1318-1324. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.03.010. Epub 2022 Mar 26. Spine J. 2022. PMID: 35351666
-
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.Spine J. 2021 Jul;21(7):1118-1125. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.018. Epub 2021 Feb 26. Spine J. 2021. PMID: 33640585
-
MIS Expandable Interbody Spacers: A Literature Review and Biomechanical Comparison of an Expandable MIS TLIF With Conventional TLIF and ALIF.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Apr;41 Suppl 8:S44-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001465. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016. PMID: 26825792 Review.
-
The Evolution of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Journey from Past to Present.Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Feb 23;60(3):378. doi: 10.3390/medicina60030378. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024. PMID: 38541104 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Adjacent Segment Motion of Stand-Alone ALIF Versus TLIF in the Degenerative Spine: A Biomechanical Study.Global Spine J. 2025 May 14:21925682251341823. doi: 10.1177/21925682251341823. Online ahead of print. Global Spine J. 2025. PMID: 40365962 Free PMC article.
-
Establishing a Staging System for Adjacent Segment Disease and Exploring Its Significance in Guiding Surgical Decisions: A Retrospective Study.Orthop Surg. 2025 May;17(5):1418-1432. doi: 10.1111/os.70029. Epub 2025 Mar 20. Orthop Surg. 2025. PMID: 40113451 Free PMC article.
-
Loosening of stand-alone ALIF versus TLIF in degenerated lumbar human spines: an in vitro biomechanical study.Eur Spine J. 2025 Jun;34(6):2478-2486. doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-08866-1. Epub 2025 Apr 29. Eur Spine J. 2025. PMID: 40299014
-
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) Versus Full-Endoscopic/Percutaneous TLIF With a Large-Footprint Interbody Cage: A Comparative Observational Study.Global Spine J. 2025 Jan 26;15(6):21925682251316280. doi: 10.1177/21925682251316280. Online ahead of print. Global Spine J. 2025. PMID: 39864958 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources