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

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
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

03 September 2013

17 December 2013

Publication Date:
28 March 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.

Supplementary Material

 
  • References

  • 1 Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A (1) 1-3
  • 2 Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews AHRQ Publication No. 10(12)-EHC063-EF.2012; Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov
  • 3 West S, King V, Carey TS , et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center, Contract No. 290–97–0011). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002
  • 4 Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA , et al; GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328 (7454) 1490
  • 5 Deluzio KJ, Lucio JC, Rodgers WB. Value and cost in less invasive spinal fusion surgery: lessons from a community hospital. SAS Journal 2010; 4 (2) 37-40
  • 6 Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Rodgers JA. Lumbar fusion in octogenarians: the promise of minimally invasive surgery. Spine 2010; 35 (26, Suppl): S355-S360
  • 7 Knight RQ, Schwaegler P, Hanscom D, Roh J. Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative conditions: early complication profile. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22 (1) 34-37
  • 8 Rodgers WB, Cox CS, Gerber EJ. Early complications of extreme lateral interbody fusion in the obese. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010; 23 (6) 393-397
  • 9 Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, Rodgers WB, Phillips FM. A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine 2010; 35 (26, Suppl): S322-S330
  • 10 Karikari IO, Nimjee SM, Hardin CA , et al. Extreme lateral interbody fusion approach for isolated thoracic and thoracolumbar spine diseases: initial clinical experience and early outcomes. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011; 24 (6) 368-375
  • 11 Caputo AM, Michael KW, Chapman TM , et al. Extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. J Clin Neurosci 2013; 20 (11) 1558-1563
  • 12 Kepler CK, Huang RC, Sharma AK , et al. Factors influencing segmental lumbar lordosis after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. Orthop Surg 2012; 4 (2) 71-75