Survivorship and clinical outcomes after multi-level anterior lumbar reconstruction with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion or hybrid construct. (June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chen, Benjamin; Akpolat, Yusuf T.; Williams, Paul; Bergey, Darren; Cheng, Wayne K.
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical neuroscience. Volume 28(2016:Jun.)
• Page Start: 7
• Page End: 11
• Publication Date: 2016-06
• Subjects: ALIF -- Anterior lumbar interbody fusion -- Hybrid construct -- Multilevel lumbar degenerative disc disease -- Total disc replacement; Brain -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neurosciences -- Periodicals; Nervous system -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Brain -- surgery -- Periodicals; Neurosurgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Neurosciences -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.8
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.10.033
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0967-5868

Abstract

Highlights: In multilevel disc disease, there is uncertainty regarding the most effective and safe construct. Multilevel hybrid construct fusion and anterior lumbar inter body fusion (ALIF) were compared. Blood loss, operation time, hospital stay, visual analogue scale scores, and Oswestry disability index scores were compared. Hybrid fusion is an effective and safe alternative to ALIF. Abstract: In multilevel disc disease, there is still uncertainty regarding whether multiple total disc replacement is more effective and safer than fusion. Our objective was to measure and compare the clinical outcome of multilevel hybrid constructs with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using a retrospective analysis. Sixty-four patients with chronic low back pain determined to be from two or three-level degenerative disc disease were included. Thirty-three patients were treated with hybrid fusion and 31 with ALIF. Several parameters were retrospectively reviewed, including blood loss, operation time, hospital stay, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and survivorship without the need for revision surgery. Telephone follow-ups were conducted to ascertain survivorship, clinical outcomes (VAS, ODI) and patient satisfaction. Operation time was longer in the hybrid group ( p = 0.021). The hybrid group showed a significant improvement in VAS and ODI with 52.2% and 50.0% improvement versus 28.3% and 25.5% in the ALIF group ( p < 0.05). At the telephone follow-up for patient satisfaction, 95.7% (n = 22) of the hybrid group were satisfied and 95.2% (n = 21) of the ALIF group were satisfied. Seventy-four percent (n = 17) in the hybrid group and 85.7% (n = 18) in the ALIF group would choose to do the initial surgery again. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed 80.5% survivorship for hybrids and 75.9% for ALIF at 5 years. With our clinical outcomes in VAS and ODI scores, these results, when taken together, indicate that hybrid fusion is a valid and viable alternative to ALIF fusion, with at least equal if not better clinical outcomes in terms of survivorship, back pain, and disability scores.