A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Research Article

Huan Liu¹  Yong Xu¹  Zhen Yuan¹  Qunhu Zhang¹  Min Zhou¹  Yongxin Ren¹ 

[1] Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, 210029, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China;

关键词: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion;    Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion;    Meta-analysis;    Lumbar fusion;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-367

 received in 2014-06-07, accepted in 2014-10-20,  发布年份 2014

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundWe compared the perioperative results and complications associated with PLIF and TLIF, and collected evidence for choosing the better fusion method.MethodsA literature survey of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases identified 7 comparative observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. Checklists by Cowley were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. A database including patient demographic information, perioperative results, and complications was established. The summary odds ratio and weighed mean difference with 95% confidence interval were calculated with a random-effects model.ResultsWe found that PLIF had a higher complication rate (P <0.00001), and TLIF reduced the rate of durotomy (P = 0.01). No statistical difference was found between the two groups with regard to clinical satisfaction (P = 0.54), blood loss (P = 0.14), vertebral root injury (P = 0.08), graft malposition (P = 0.06), infection (P = 0.36), or rate of radiographic fusion (P = 0.27). The evidence indicated that PLIF required longer operative time (P = 0.03).ConclusionsThe evidence indicated that TLIF could reduce the complication rate and durotomy. Neither TLIP nor PLIF was found superior in terms of clinical satisfaction or radiographic fusion rate. PLIF might result in longer time in surgery.

【 授权许可】

Unknown   
© Zhang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.