BACKGROUND: Prior studies of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have primarily focused on older populations, with limited evaluation of younger adults as a distinct cohort. Whether presumed biologic advantages in younger patients translate into superior long-term outcomes remains unclear. This study aimed to assess whether younger age (≤50 years) is associated with improved clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes following TLIF. METHODS: Adults undergoing TLIF for degenerative lumbar pathology at a single center (2018-2022) with ≥2-year follow-up were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were stratified by age (≤50 vs >50 years). A 1:2 propensity score match was performed using sex, BMI, age-independent comorbidity index, prior fusion, and number of levels fused. Outcomes included complications, reoperation, radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcomes (ODI, VAS back/leg pain). Univariate and multivariable analyses adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: From 854 patients, propensity matching yielded 89 aged ≤50 years and 178 aged >50 years. Complication rates were comparable between groups (reoperation: 19.1% vs 22.5%, p = 0.53; pseudarthrosis: 3.4% vs 5.6%, p = 0.42; subsidence: 12.4% vs 19.1%, p = 0.17; ASD: 10.1% vs 15.7%, p = 0.21). On multivariable analysis, age >50 was not associated with reoperation, pseudarthrosis, or subsidence, but independently predicted adjacent segment disease (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.02-4.66; p = 0.044). Radiographic outcomes were comparable. Older age was independently associated with greater 2-year improvement in ODI, VAS back, and leg pain (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Younger age was not associated with reduced complications, reoperation, or radiographic failure after TLIF. Older patients demonstrated greater patient-reported improvement despite similar surgical outcomes. This suggests that age alone should not be considered a predictor of superior TLIF outcomes and highlights the importance of individualized patient counseling regarding expected functional benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: