Evid Based Spine Care J 2014; 05(01): 028-037
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368670
Systematic Review
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF): Comparative Effectiveness and Safety versus PLIF/TLIF and Predictive Factors Affecting LLIF Outcome

Autor*innen

  • Giuseppe M. V. Barbagallo

    1   Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Policlinico University Hospital, Catania, Italy
  • Vincenzo Albanese

    1   Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Policlinico University Hospital, Catania, Italy
  • Annie L. Raich

    2   Spectrum Research, Inc., Tacoma, Washington, United States
  • Joseph R. Dettori

    2   Spectrum Research, Inc., Tacoma, Washington, United States
  • Ned Sherry

    2   Spectrum Research, Inc., Tacoma, Washington, United States
  • Massimo Balsano

    3   Regional Spinal Department, Alto Vicentino, OC Santorso, Vicenza, Italy
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

03. September 2013

17. Dezember 2013

Publikationsdatum:
28. März 2014 (online)

Abstract

Study Design Systematic review.

Study Rationale The surgical treatment of adult degenerative lumbar conditions remains controversial. Conventional techniques include posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A new direct approach known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF®) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has been introduced.

Objectives The objective of this article is to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF, at one or more levels with or without instrumentation, versus PLIF or TLIF surgery in adults with lumbar degenerative conditions, and to determine which preoperative factors affect patient outcomes following LLIF surgery.

Materials and Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed and bibliographies of key articles. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality rating scheme.

Results The search yielded 258 citations and the following met our inclusion criteria: three retrospective cohort studies (all using historical cohorts) (class of evidence [CoE] III) examining the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF/XLIF®/DLIF versus PLIF or TLIF surgery, and one prospective cohort study (CoE II) and two retrospective cohort studies (CoE III) assessing factors affecting patient outcome following LLIF. Patients in the LLIF group experienced less estimated blood loss and a lower mortality risk compared with the PLIF group. The number of levels treated and the preoperative diagnosis were significant predictors of perioperative or early complications in two studies.

Conclusion There is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LLIF versus PLIF/TLIF surgery. There is low-quality evidence suggesting that LLIF surgery results in fewer complications or reoperations than PLIF/TLIF surgery. And there is insufficient evidence that any preoperative factors exist that predict patient outcome after LLIF surgery.