Spine · 2024
One-Level Versus Two-Level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) From L4 to S1 : Comparison of Complications, Alignment, and Patient Outcomes.
СтатьяСравнительное 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.
Singh Manjot, Knebel Ashley, Kuharski Michael J, Nassar Joseph E, Callanan Tucker, Basques Bryce A, Kuris Eren O, Diebo Bassel G, Daniels Alan H
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes in patients undergoing one-level or two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L4-S1.
BACKGROUND: Although ALIF may deliver restoration of lumbar lordosis and improvement in clinical outcomes, it also carries risk of complications including major vascular injury. Whether one-level and two-level ALIF offers similar outcomes is not known.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults who underwent one-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 ALIF and two-level L4-S1 ALIF at a single academic institution were identified. Patient demographics, procedural characteristics, improvement in spinopelvic alignment, and one-year postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications were compared. Multivariate regression analyses, accounting for age, sex, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), were also performed.
RESULTS: In total, 158 ALIF patients (111 one-level and 47 two-level) were included, with mean age of 51.4 years, 57.0% female, mean CCI of 1.2, and mean follow-up of 27.0 months. Surgical time (147.3 vs. 124.6 min, P =0.002) and hospital length of stay (3.5 vs. 2.9 d, P =0.036) were higher for two-level ALIF. One-year postoperatively, two-level ALIF patients had more caudal apex of lordosis ( P =0.016) and 4.1 mm ( P =0.002) and 2.0 mm ( P =0.019) higher L4-L5 anterior and posterior disc heights, respectively. PROMs were not statistically different across groups ( P >0.05). Finally, two-level ALIF patients were 10.9 times more likely to have in-hospital complications ( P =0.040), such as intraoperative vascular injury (11.1% vs. 1.5%, P =0.040) or postoperative ileus (7.4% vs. 0.0%, P =0.027), than one-level ALIF patients.
CONCLUSION: In this investigation with greater than one-year follow-up, two-level ALIF in the L4-S1 spine had higher procedural time, length of stay, and approach-related complications than one-level ALIF. Although there were minor improvements in alignment with two-level ALIF, PROMs were comparable with improvements from baseline to last follow-up. These findings may help surgeons carefully weigh the risks and benefits of one-level versus two-level ALIF when determining surgical plans for patients.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes in patients undergoing one-level or two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L4-S1.
BACKGROUND: Although ALIF may deliver restoration of lumbar lordosis and improvement in clinical outcomes, it also carries risk of complications including major vascular injury. Whether one-level and two-level ALIF offers similar outcomes is not known.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults who underwent one-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 ALIF and two-level L4-S1 ALIF at a single academic institution were identified. Patient demographics, procedural characteristics, improvement in spinopelvic alignment, and one-year postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications were compared. Multivariate regression analyses, accounting for age, sex, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), were also performed.
RESULTS: In total, 158 ALIF patients (111 one-level and 47 two-level) were included, with mean age of 51.4 years, 57.0% female, mean CCI of 1.2, and mean follow-up of 27.0 months. Surgical time (147.3 vs. 124.6 min, P =0.002) and hospital length of stay (3.5 vs. 2.9 d, P =0.036) were higher for two-level ALIF. One-year postoperatively, two-level ALIF patients had more caudal apex of lordosis ( P =0.016) and 4.1 mm ( P =0.002) and 2.0 mm ( P =0.019) higher L4-L5 anterior and posterior disc heights, respectively. PROMs were not statistically different across groups ( P >0.05). Finally, two-level ALIF patients were 10.9 times more likely to have in-hospital complications ( P =0.040), such as intraoperative vascular injury (11.1% vs. 1.5%, P =0.040) or postoperative ileus (7.4% vs. 0.0%, P =0.027), than one-level ALIF patients.
CONCLUSION: In this investigation with greater than one-year follow-up, two-level ALIF in the L4-S1 spine had higher procedural time, length of stay, and approach-related complications than one-level ALIF. Although there were minor improvements in alignment with two-level ALIF, PROMs were comparable with improvements from baseline to last follow-up. These findings may help surgeons carefully weigh the risks and benefits of one-level versus two-level ALIF when determining surgical plans for patients.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.