World neurosurgery · 2026
Comparative Study of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable Cages versus Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Canal Stenosis Associated with Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tanaka Atsushi, Kimura Hiroaki, Sono Takashi, Shimizu Yu, Kawaguchi Shinji, Morizane Kazuaki, Masuda Soichiro, Shimizu Takayoshi, Odate Seiichi, Takemoto Mitsuru, Otsuki Bungo, Matsuda Shuichi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Lumbar canal stenosis associated with osteoporotic vertebral fractures is rare, and optimal surgical strategies remain controversial. While anterior reconstruction is considered beneficial, no studies have compared lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and extensive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Ex-PLIF). This study compared the efficacy and safety of Ex-PLIF and LLIF for lumbar canal stenosis associated with osteoporotic vertebral fractures.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 40 patients from 5 hospitals treated between 2015 and 2022. Patients underwent 1-level or 2-level Ex-PLIF (n = 22) or LLIF (n = 18). Assessment included demographics, activities of daily living, operative parameters, complications, and radiographic outcomes. A novel fracture classification based on coronal computed tomography endplate morphology (asymmetry, flat, concave) was developed.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant postoperative activities of daily living improvement. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LLIF group (P = 0.004). The LLIF group also demonstrated significantly less correction loss of the local lordotic angle compared to the Ex-PLIF group (P < 0.05). No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed. Regarding fracture classification, asymmetry was more frequent in the Ex-PLIF group (n = 5 vs. n = 1). Fixation involving L5/S1 occurred only in the Ex-PLIF group (n = 4).
CONCLUSIONS: LLIF is superior to Ex-PLIF regarding blood loss and maintenance of sagittal correction. However, Ex-PLIF remains a viable option for patients requiring L5/S1 involvement or those presenting with asymmetric vertebral endplate morphology.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 40 patients from 5 hospitals treated between 2015 and 2022. Patients underwent 1-level or 2-level Ex-PLIF (n = 22) or LLIF (n = 18). Assessment included demographics, activities of daily living, operative parameters, complications, and radiographic outcomes. A novel fracture classification based on coronal computed tomography endplate morphology (asymmetry, flat, concave) was developed.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant postoperative activities of daily living improvement. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LLIF group (P = 0.004). The LLIF group also demonstrated significantly less correction loss of the local lordotic angle compared to the Ex-PLIF group (P < 0.05). No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed. Regarding fracture classification, asymmetry was more frequent in the Ex-PLIF group (n = 5 vs. n = 1). Fixation involving L5/S1 occurred only in the Ex-PLIF group (n = 4).
CONCLUSIONS: LLIF is superior to Ex-PLIF regarding blood loss and maintenance of sagittal correction. However, Ex-PLIF remains a viable option for patients requiring L5/S1 involvement or those presenting with asymmetric vertebral endplate morphology.