Clinical spine surgery · 2026
Lumbar Disc Replacement Provides Indirect Decompression as Effectively as Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kaidi Austin C, Ehrlich Adin, Zabat Michelle A, Xu Amy, Subramanian Tejas, Katiyar Prerana, Lama John, Korsun Maximillian K, Asada Tomoyuki, Durbas Atahan, Pezzi Andrea, Halayqeh Sereen, Lui Adrian, Tuma Olivia, Kim Han Jo, Huang Russel C, Sandhu Harvinder, Albert Todd J, Lovecchio Francis C, Farmer James C, Cunningham Matthew E, Sheha Evan D, Dowdell James E, Iyer Sravisht, Qureshi Sheeraz A
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Propensity-matched retrospective cohort.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether lumbar disc replacement (LDR) can provide radiographic indirect decompression as effectively as anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Isolated lumbar foraminal stenosis can often be treated with indirect decompression via ALIF. More recently, LDR has emerged as a motion-preserving treatment option for lumbar disease; however, its ability to provide indirect decompression has not been studied.
METHODS: All patients undergoing 1-level ALIF and LDR over a 7-year period were queried. A propensity-matched cohort was then identified utilizing patient-specific factors. This yielded 23 patients undergoing LDR and 44 undergoing ALIF. The primary outcome of this study was the change in radiographic foraminal height (FH) and segmental lordosis (SL) from pre- to postoperatively. All measurements were performed by 2 independent reviewers, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. Patient-reported outcome measures, including visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg scores, were collected for comparison at early and late postoperative timepoints. Intercohort comparisons were performed via Mann-Whitney U tests. P-values <0.05 were deemed significant.
RESULTS: Patients undergoing LDR had shorter operative time (98.9 vs. 136.7 min, P<0.01). FH and SL showed good ICCs (>0.75) across both reviewers. Preoperatively, ALIF patients had smaller radiographic FH (13.8 vs. 15.6 mm, P=0.01), but no other differences were seen. Both ALIF and LDR provided significant increases in FH (ALIF: 3.5 mm and LDR: 3.7 mm) and SL (ALIF: 8.0 degrees and LDR: 8.0 degrees). There were no differences in the mean ΔFH (P=0.56) or ΔSL (P=0.85) between cohorts. Both groups showed significant improvement in postoperative VAS leg scores at early and late time points.
CONCLUSIONS: LDR can provide indirect decompression and segmental lordosis restoration as effectively as ALIF.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether lumbar disc replacement (LDR) can provide radiographic indirect decompression as effectively as anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Isolated lumbar foraminal stenosis can often be treated with indirect decompression via ALIF. More recently, LDR has emerged as a motion-preserving treatment option for lumbar disease; however, its ability to provide indirect decompression has not been studied.
METHODS: All patients undergoing 1-level ALIF and LDR over a 7-year period were queried. A propensity-matched cohort was then identified utilizing patient-specific factors. This yielded 23 patients undergoing LDR and 44 undergoing ALIF. The primary outcome of this study was the change in radiographic foraminal height (FH) and segmental lordosis (SL) from pre- to postoperatively. All measurements were performed by 2 independent reviewers, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. Patient-reported outcome measures, including visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg scores, were collected for comparison at early and late postoperative timepoints. Intercohort comparisons were performed via Mann-Whitney U tests. P-values <0.05 were deemed significant.
RESULTS: Patients undergoing LDR had shorter operative time (98.9 vs. 136.7 min, P<0.01). FH and SL showed good ICCs (>0.75) across both reviewers. Preoperatively, ALIF patients had smaller radiographic FH (13.8 vs. 15.6 mm, P=0.01), but no other differences were seen. Both ALIF and LDR provided significant increases in FH (ALIF: 3.5 mm and LDR: 3.7 mm) and SL (ALIF: 8.0 degrees and LDR: 8.0 degrees). There were no differences in the mean ΔFH (P=0.56) or ΔSL (P=0.85) between cohorts. Both groups showed significant improvement in postoperative VAS leg scores at early and late time points.
CONCLUSIONS: LDR can provide indirect decompression and segmental lordosis restoration as effectively as ALIF.