Benefit of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion vs Posterolateral Spinal Fusion in Lumbar Spine Disorders

A Propensity-Matched Analysis from the National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database Registry

Steven D. Glassman, Leah Y. Carreon, Zoher Ghogawala, Kevin Foley, Matthew J. McGirt, Anthony L. Asher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Despite increasing use and potential benefits of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF), previous studies have not documented improved clinical outcomes with TLIF vs PSF. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of TLIF with PSF in patients with spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and adjacent level disease. METHODS: The National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had a lumbar fusion. Eighty-five percent (1722) of enrolled cases had 12-month follow-up data. There were 306 PSF patients and 1230 TLIF patients. PSF cases within each diagnostic subgroup were propensity-matched to patients who had TLIF. Sufficient propensity-matched controls were available for patients with spondylolisthesis (109), spinal stenosis (63), and adjacent segment disease (47). RESULTS: Operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were similar between PSF and TLIF in all 3 propensity-matched groups. In the spondylolisthesis group, there was a greater improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) with TLIF vs PSF at 3 months (19.4 vs 26.0, P.009), 12 months (20.8 vs 29.3, P.001), and in percentage reaching minimal clinically important difference at 12 months (80% vs 62%, P.007). There were no differences in ODI improvement between PSF and TLIF in the stenosis or adjacent segment disease groups. CONCLUSION: TLIF generated more favorable ODI outcomes than PSF for patients with spondylolisthesis, but not for patients with spinal stenosis or adjacent segment disease. There was also equivalence in operating room time and estimated blood loss between TLIF and PSF, potentially altering the long-standing assumption that PSF is a simpler procedure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)397-405
Number of pages9
JournalNeurosurgery
Volume79
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

Spinal Fusion
Registries
Spine
Databases
Spondylolisthesis
Spinal Stenosis
Operating Rooms
Length of Stay
Pathologic Constriction
Research Design

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Benefit of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion vs Posterolateral Spinal Fusion in Lumbar Spine Disorders : A Propensity-Matched Analysis from the National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database Registry. / Glassman, Steven D.; Carreon, Leah Y.; Ghogawala, Zoher; Foley, Kevin; McGirt, Matthew J.; Asher, Anthony L.

In: Neurosurgery, Vol. 79, No. 3, 01.09.2016, p. 397-405.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0256ba272a864d3999aedf9d64a84b73,
title = "Benefit of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion vs Posterolateral Spinal Fusion in Lumbar Spine Disorders: A Propensity-Matched Analysis from the National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database Registry",
abstract = "Background: Despite increasing use and potential benefits of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF), previous studies have not documented improved clinical outcomes with TLIF vs PSF. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of TLIF with PSF in patients with spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and adjacent level disease. METHODS: The National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had a lumbar fusion. Eighty-five percent (1722) of enrolled cases had 12-month follow-up data. There were 306 PSF patients and 1230 TLIF patients. PSF cases within each diagnostic subgroup were propensity-matched to patients who had TLIF. Sufficient propensity-matched controls were available for patients with spondylolisthesis (109), spinal stenosis (63), and adjacent segment disease (47). RESULTS: Operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were similar between PSF and TLIF in all 3 propensity-matched groups. In the spondylolisthesis group, there was a greater improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) with TLIF vs PSF at 3 months (19.4 vs 26.0, P.009), 12 months (20.8 vs 29.3, P.001), and in percentage reaching minimal clinically important difference at 12 months (80{\%} vs 62{\%}, P.007). There were no differences in ODI improvement between PSF and TLIF in the stenosis or adjacent segment disease groups. CONCLUSION: TLIF generated more favorable ODI outcomes than PSF for patients with spondylolisthesis, but not for patients with spinal stenosis or adjacent segment disease. There was also equivalence in operating room time and estimated blood loss between TLIF and PSF, potentially altering the long-standing assumption that PSF is a simpler procedure.",
author = "Glassman, {Steven D.} and Carreon, {Leah Y.} and Zoher Ghogawala and Kevin Foley and McGirt, {Matthew J.} and Asher, {Anthony L.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1227/NEU.0000000000001118",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "79",
pages = "397--405",
journal = "Neurosurgery",
issn = "0148-396X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benefit of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion vs Posterolateral Spinal Fusion in Lumbar Spine Disorders

T2 - A Propensity-Matched Analysis from the National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database Registry

AU - Glassman, Steven D.

AU - Carreon, Leah Y.

AU - Ghogawala, Zoher

AU - Foley, Kevin

AU - McGirt, Matthew J.

AU - Asher, Anthony L.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Background: Despite increasing use and potential benefits of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF), previous studies have not documented improved clinical outcomes with TLIF vs PSF. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of TLIF with PSF in patients with spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and adjacent level disease. METHODS: The National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had a lumbar fusion. Eighty-five percent (1722) of enrolled cases had 12-month follow-up data. There were 306 PSF patients and 1230 TLIF patients. PSF cases within each diagnostic subgroup were propensity-matched to patients who had TLIF. Sufficient propensity-matched controls were available for patients with spondylolisthesis (109), spinal stenosis (63), and adjacent segment disease (47). RESULTS: Operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were similar between PSF and TLIF in all 3 propensity-matched groups. In the spondylolisthesis group, there was a greater improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) with TLIF vs PSF at 3 months (19.4 vs 26.0, P.009), 12 months (20.8 vs 29.3, P.001), and in percentage reaching minimal clinically important difference at 12 months (80% vs 62%, P.007). There were no differences in ODI improvement between PSF and TLIF in the stenosis or adjacent segment disease groups. CONCLUSION: TLIF generated more favorable ODI outcomes than PSF for patients with spondylolisthesis, but not for patients with spinal stenosis or adjacent segment disease. There was also equivalence in operating room time and estimated blood loss between TLIF and PSF, potentially altering the long-standing assumption that PSF is a simpler procedure.

AB - Background: Despite increasing use and potential benefits of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF), previous studies have not documented improved clinical outcomes with TLIF vs PSF. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of TLIF with PSF in patients with spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and adjacent level disease. METHODS: The National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had a lumbar fusion. Eighty-five percent (1722) of enrolled cases had 12-month follow-up data. There were 306 PSF patients and 1230 TLIF patients. PSF cases within each diagnostic subgroup were propensity-matched to patients who had TLIF. Sufficient propensity-matched controls were available for patients with spondylolisthesis (109), spinal stenosis (63), and adjacent segment disease (47). RESULTS: Operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were similar between PSF and TLIF in all 3 propensity-matched groups. In the spondylolisthesis group, there was a greater improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) with TLIF vs PSF at 3 months (19.4 vs 26.0, P.009), 12 months (20.8 vs 29.3, P.001), and in percentage reaching minimal clinically important difference at 12 months (80% vs 62%, P.007). There were no differences in ODI improvement between PSF and TLIF in the stenosis or adjacent segment disease groups. CONCLUSION: TLIF generated more favorable ODI outcomes than PSF for patients with spondylolisthesis, but not for patients with spinal stenosis or adjacent segment disease. There was also equivalence in operating room time and estimated blood loss between TLIF and PSF, potentially altering the long-standing assumption that PSF is a simpler procedure.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947460630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84947460630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001118

DO - 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001118

M3 - Article

VL - 79

SP - 397

EP - 405

JO - Neurosurgery

JF - Neurosurgery

SN - 0148-396X

IS - 3

ER -