P138. Lumbar Fusion Success in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Disease Without Spondylolisthesis: A Global Study Comparing Anterolateral Versus Posterior MIS Approaches
Yung Park,Yann Philippe Charles,Carlos Santos,Yueming Song,Shisheng He,Jae-Young Hong,Paulo M. Pereira,Vasileios Arzoglou,Shaishav Bhagat,Dimitri Vanhauwaert,Neil A. Manson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.05.346
IF: 4.297
2021-01-01
The Spine Journal
Abstract:BACKGROUND CONTEXT Numerous anterolateral and posterior minimally invasive (MI) lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) approaches can be used to treat patients with degenerative lumbar disease (DLD). However, evidence for the effectiveness and safety of MI LIF for DLD is largely derived from case series and small cohort studies by a single institution or single surgeon, which limits the generalizability of conclusions. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether patients receiving an anterolateral or posterior approach achieve similar outcomes and fusion rates. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to generate real-world, global evidence of the effectiveness and safety of anterolateral and posterior MI-LIF approaches. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING A global multicenter prospective clinical study (NCT02617563) across Asia Pacific, Europe, Russia and Latin America. PATIENT SAMPLE Adult patients with DLD without spondylolisthesis (n=109). OUTCOME MEASURES Demographics, disability (ODI), back and leg pain (VAS), quality of life (EQ5D), fusion status and serious adverse events (SAE). METHODS DLD patients without spondylolisthesis indicated for anterolateral (ALIF, DLIF, OLIF) or posterior (MIDLF, PLIF, TLIF) MI-LIF surgery were consecutively enrolled. Each procedure was completed by an MI experienced surgeon who determined the approach for each patient. Demographic and outcome data were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, 3- and 12-months post-surgery. Fusion status was assessed at 12-months. Paired t-test and ANCOVA were used to test for improvements from baseline and between group differences. RESULTS Fifty of the 109 patients received anterolateral MI-LIF (58% 1-level; 42% 2-level) and 59 patients received posterior MI-LIF (86% 1-level, 14% 2-level). Stenosis was less common in patients who underwent anterolateral (60% first level, 52% second level) compared to posterior (78% at first level, 88% at second level) MI-LIF procedures. At 12 months post-surgery, patients reported on average, statistically significant and clinically important improvements on all outcome measures compared to baseline regardless of approach used. There was no statistically significant difference in the level of improvement between patients receiving an anterolateral or posterior approach for ODI, leg pain and EQ5D index score. Patients treated with a posterior approach had a greater reduction in back pain compared with anterolateral treated patients (p =0.017). Eighty-seven percent of patients in the combined sample achieved fusion at 12-months (anterolateral group 91.2%, posterior group 82.9%). One MI-LIF procedure-related and one device-related SAE in the anterolateral group were reported. CONCLUSIONS Despite the anterolateral group having a higher percentage of patients requiring a 2-level MI-LIF compared to the posterior group, the fusion rates and PROMs were similar; the exception being for the reduction in back pain which favored the posterior group. These data are consistent with existing literature indicating that both anterolateral and posterior approaches make a meaningful difference to patients suffering from back and leg pain. It is however not clear if surgeons are matching the approach to the patient, or if it does not matter which approach is used. It is important for clinical guidelines and or patient profiles to be defined in order to establish who is most likely to benefit from which approach. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs. Numerous anterolateral and posterior minimally invasive (MI) lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) approaches can be used to treat patients with degenerative lumbar disease (DLD). However, evidence for the effectiveness and safety of MI LIF for DLD is largely derived from case series and small cohort studies by a single institution or single surgeon, which limits the generalizability of conclusions. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether patients receiving an anterolateral or posterior approach achieve similar outcomes and fusion rates. The purpose of this study was to generate real-world, global evidence of the effectiveness and safety of anterolateral and posterior MI-LIF approaches. A global multicenter prospective clinical study (NCT02617563) across Asia Pacific, Europe, Russia and Latin America. Adult patients with DLD without spondylolisthesis (n=109). Demographics, disability (ODI), back and leg pain (VAS), quality of life (EQ5D), fusion status and serious adverse events (SAE). DLD patients without spondylolisthesis indicated for anterolateral (ALIF, DLIF, OLIF) or posterior (MIDLF, PLIF, TLIF) MI-LIF surgery were consecutively enrolled. Each procedure was completed by an MI experienced surgeon who determined the approach for each patient. Demographic and outcome data were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, 3- and 12-months post-surgery. Fusion status was assessed at 12-months. Paired t-test and ANCOVA were used to test for improvements from baseline and between group differences. Fifty of the 109 patients received anterolateral MI-LIF (58% 1-level; 42% 2-level) and 59 patients received posterior MI-LIF (86% 1-level, 14% 2-level). Stenosis was less common in patients who underwent anterolateral (60% first level, 52% second level) compared to posterior (78% at first level, 88% at second level) MI-LIF procedures. At 12 months post-surgery, patients reported on average, statistically significant and clinically important improvements on all outcome measures compared to baseline regardless of approach used. There was no statistically significant difference in the level of improvement between patients receiving an anterolateral or posterior approach for ODI, leg pain and EQ5D index score. Patients treated with a posterior approach had a greater reduction in back pain compared with anterolateral treated patients (p =0.017). Eighty-seven percent of patients in the combined sample achieved fusion at 12-months (anterolateral group 91.2%, posterior group 82.9%). One MI-LIF procedure-related and one device-related SAE in the anterolateral group were reported. Despite the anterolateral group having a higher percentage of patients requiring a 2-level MI-LIF compared to the posterior group, the fusion rates and PROMs were similar; the exception being for the reduction in back pain which favored the posterior group. These data are consistent with existing literature indicating that both anterolateral and posterior approaches make a meaningful difference to patients suffering from back and leg pain. It is however not clear if surgeons are matching the approach to the patient, or if it does not matter which approach is used. It is important for clinical guidelines and or patient profiles to be defined in order to establish who is most likely to benefit from which approach.