Abstract:Background/context: Degenerative lumbar disease can be addressed via an anterior or posterior approach, and with or without the use of an interbody cage. Although several studies have compared the type of approach and technique, there is a lack of literature assessing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic parameters between different fusion techniques. Purpose: To determine whether the surgical approach and fusion technique for lumbar degenerative disease had an effect on short-term PROMs and radiographic parameters. Study design/setting: Retrospective Cohort Study. Patient sample: Three hundred and ninety-one patients who underwent a 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion procedure at a high-volume academic center were retrospectively identified. Patients were divided into three groups based on the type of fusion they underwent: posterolateral fusion (PLF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Outcome measures: PROMs: Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Score (VAS) Back, VAS Leg. Spinopelvic measurements: Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS), Pelvic Incidence (PI), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), Segmental Lordosis (SL), PI-LL mismatch. Methods: Patients with less than 1-year follow-up were excluded from the cohort. Pre- and postoperative spinopelvic measurements were obtained for all patients. Univariate analysis (Chi-squared/Fisher's exact test or ANOVA test with post-hoc Bonferroni test) was used to compare among the three groups in the PROMs and radiographic spinopelvic parameters. Multiple linear regression was used to determine if fusion technique was an independent predictor of change in each patient outcome. Results: Two hundred and sixteen patients were included in the PLF group, 33 patients in the ALIF group, and 142 patients in the TLIF group. The PLF group was significantly older at baseline (p<.001) and had lower preoperative diagnosis rates of degenerative scoliosis and disc herniations (p<.001), whereas the ALIF group underwent a higher proportion of three-level fusions (p<.001). There was no significant difference in spinopelvic parameters preoperatively, however the ALIF group showed significantly more improvement in SL postoperatively (p=.004) than the PLF and TLIF groups. Within each group, SL improved for the PLF and ALIF groups (p=.002 for both), but not for the TLIF group (p=.238). Comparing patient outcomes, the ALIF group reported lower preoperative VAS Leg scores (p=.031), however, this difference resolved postoperatively. Stratifying for preoperative diagnosis, there were no significant differences in outcomes, except for a greater improvement in VAS Leg scores for degenerative scoliosis patients undergoing ALIF. Using multivariate analysis, fusion technique was not found to be a significant predictor of change in any patient outcome or in odds of revision. Conclusions: Lumbar degenerative disease can be treated with several different fusion techniques, however, the relationship between type of fusion and PROMs is not established. Based on the findings in this study, the ALIF group showed greater improvement in SL compared with the PLF and TLIF groups, however, there was no difference noted in overall LL, PI-LL mismatch or other spinopelvic parameters. Despite these radiographic findings, patient outcome measures remained similar between all three fusion types.

Instrumentation choice and early radiographic outcome following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF): Lateral instrumentation versus posterior pedicle screw fixation

Is stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion superior to instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-level, low-grade, lumbar spondylolisthesis?

A Modified Surgical Technique of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined with Lateral Plate Fixation for the Treatment of Degenerative Diseases of the Lumbar Spine: A Retrospective Study.

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined with Lateral Plate VS. Combined with Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation in Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined With Lateral Plate Fixation for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: a Preliminary Clinical Study

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for severe lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up

Meta-analysis of Instrumented Posterior Interbody Fusion Versus Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion in the Lumbar Spine.

Is instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion superior to stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease? A meta-analysis

Comparison of Stand-alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Open Laminectomy and Posterolateral Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease Following Previous Lumbar Fusion Surgery

[Effects of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lordosis Correction in Degenerative Lumbar Diseases].

Cadaveric biomechanical analysis of multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion with and without supplemental instrumentation

466 Primary Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, With and Without Posterior Instrumentation: A 1377 Patient Cohort From a Multicenter Spine Registry

Perioperative Clinical Features and Long-term Prognosis After Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF), OLIF With Anterolateral Screw Fixation, or OLIF With Percutaneous Pedicle Fixation: A Comprehensive Treatment Strategy for Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Fusion technique does not affect short-term patient-reported outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease

Biomechanical Comparison of Multilevel Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion With Posterior Pedicle Screws: An In Vitro Study

Comparison of radiological changes after single- position versus dual- position for lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation

Radiographic Robustness of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques

Prone Single Position Approach to Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Three Different Posterior Fixation Techniques in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Two-Level Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: at a Mean Follow Up Time of 46 Months

Comparison of instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis