This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over the ability of various lumbar interbody fusion techniques to realign global and regional balance and their effect on patient outcomes. This is a retrospective cohort study to compare thirty-day postoperative outcomes between anterior and posterior interbody fusion techniques within a large national database. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study utilizing the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database included 2,372 (29.9%) single-level anterior/direct lateral interbody fusions (ALIF/DLIF) and 5,563 (70.1%) single-level posterior/transforaminal lateral interbody fusions (PLIF/TLIF) between 2013 and 2014. Emergent cases, fracture cases, and preoperative compromised wounds were not analyzed. Primary thirty-day outcomes included mortality, return to operating room, readmission, length of stay, and other major complications. Minor outcomes included urinary tract infection, superficial incisional site infection, and perioperative blood transfusion within 72 hours. RESULTS: 0.6%, P=0.025), which persisted in the multivariate analysis (OR =2.03; 95% CI, 1.13-3.65; P=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Although numerous techniques can be utilized in the treatment approach to various lumbar pathologies, anterior approaches have an increased risk of developing a perioperative DVT and early mortality. Transfusion risk is more strongly associated with elevated American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, increased age, preoperative anemia, and patients with bleeding disorders.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shillingford et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: