Sagittal Balance Correction Following Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of the Three Approaches
- Author:
Pierre Olivier CHAMPAGNE
1
;
Camille WALSH
;
Jocelyne DIABIRA
;
Marie Élaine PLANTE
;
Zhi WANG
;
Ghassan BOUBEZ
;
Daniel SHEDID
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Sagittal balance; Interbody fusion; Transforaminal interbody fusion; Minimally invasive; Lateral interbody fusion
- MeSH: Animals; Cohort Studies; Consensus; Humans; Incidence; Lordosis; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Spine
- From:Asian Spine Journal 2019;13(3):450-458
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare three widely used interbody fusion approaches in regard to their ability to correct sagittal balance, including pelvic parameters. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Restoration of sagittal balance in lumbar spine surgery is associated with better postoperative outcomes. Various interbody fusion techniques can help to correct sagittal balance, with no clear consensus on which technique offers the best correction. METHODS: The charts and imaging of patients who have undergone surgery through either open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MIS TLIF), or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) were retrospectively reviewed. The following sagittal balance parameters were measured pre- and postoperatively: segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, disk height, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence. Data on postoperative complications were gathered. RESULTS: Only OLIF managed to significantly improve segmental lordosis (4.4°, p<0.001) and lumbar lordosis (4.8°, p=0.049). All approaches significantly augmented disk height, with OLIF having the greatest effect (3.7°, p<0.001). No approaches were shown to significantly correct pelvic tilt. Pelvic incidence remained unchanged in all approaches. Open TLIF was the only approach with a higher rate of postoperative complications (33%, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The OLIF approach might offer greater correction of sagittal balance over open and MIS TLIF, mainly in regard to segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, and disk height. MIS TLIF, although offering more limited access than open TLIF, was not inferior to open TLIF in regard to sagittal balance correction. A higher rate of complications was shown for open TLIF than the other approaches, possibly due to its more invasive nature.
