En bloc discectomy via anterior lumbar approach: a technical note

Open Access

Table 2

Comparison of clinical outcomes and subsidence rates at final follow-up among various surgical techniques.

Author (Year)	Total of patients n (M/F)	Age (years ± SD)	Surgical technique	Follow-up (months)	Implant type	Subsidence rate (%)	Clinical outcome (mean ± SD)
Cuellar et al (2021) [22]	46 (N/A)	N/A	ALIF	72	ProDisc-L (Synthes Spine, Westchester, PA)	N/A	Improved ROM
							ODI
							TDR-1: 46% improvement
							TDR-2: 40% improvement
							TDR-3: 38.6% improvement
							VAS
							TDR-1: 53%
							improvement
							TDR-2: 58% improvement
							TDR-3: 55% improvement
Rao et al (2017) [23]	147 (103/44)	57.3 ± 13.6	ALIF	18	SynFix-LR PEEK integral (Depuy) for 89.1% of the patients	10.2%	VAS: 2.7 ± 0.2
							ODI: 28.8 ± 1.8
							SF-12 physical: 41.7 ± 0.9
							SF-12 mental: 48.9 ± 1.0
							Fusion rate: 91.2%
Chen et al (2019) [24]	107 (53/54)	60.79 ± 1.12	LLIF	24	PPEK cages	26.9%	VAS: 2.40 ± 0.32
Chen et al (2019) [24]	107 (53/54)	60.79 ± 1.12	LLIF	24	PPEK cages	26.9%	JOA: 18.67 ± 0.46
Gionali et al (2024) [25]	61(38/23)	39 ± 13.3	LLIF	35.5	Static (NuVasive CoRoent ® or Modulus ®), Static (J&J Synmesh ®), Expandable (Globus Medical ELSA ®)	27.8%	MacNab criteria:
							Excellent: 65.6%
							Good: 29.5%
							Fair: 4.9%
							Poor: 0
Chang et al (2019) [26]	169 (61/108)	67.7 10.9	OLIF	12	PEEK cages	62/168 (36.9%) 85/261 (32.6%)	ODI
							DS: 37.7 ± 13.5
							SS: 34.4 ± 5.1
							ST: 38.2 ± 15.2
							DF: 55.0 ± 14.9
							VAS
							DS: 2.4 ± 1.9
							SS: 2.2 ± 1.6
							ST: 2.0 ± 1.6
							DF: 3.8 ± 1.6
							SF-36
							DS: 38.6 ± 7.6
							SS: 39.0 ± 5.8
							ST: 39.6 ± 7.4
							DF: 30.9 ± 6.6
							JOABPEQ
							All domains improved
Wen et al (2020) [27]	74 (28/46)	BPS: 56.9 ± 13.2	OLIF	24 months	N/A	13/74 (17.6%)	VAS
		UPS: 58.9 ± 16.1					BPS: 2.97 ± 0.45
							UPS: 2.73 ± 0.83
							ODI
							BPS: 8.17±1.74
							UPS: 7.94±1.62
Oh et al (2017) [28]	129 (52/87)	65.17 ± 8.599	PLIF	49.2	PEEK cage (O.I.C. cages; Stryker	15.8%	VAS: 2.89
							ODI: 15.86
							SF-36: 16.46
Park et al (2019) [29]	40 (11/29)	68.9 ± 7.9	PLIF	29.7	N/A	Low grade; 10/44 (22.7%)	VAS:5.2 ± 2.1
						Low grade; 10/44 (22.7%)	ODI: 51.9 ± 16.1
						High grade; 4/44 (9.1%)	ODI: 51.9 ± 16.1
Zhao et al (2020) [30]	76 (29/47)	53.91 ± 1.13	TLIF	60	PEEK material and cuboid shape (arched appearance) from Stry	Low grade: 11.8%	VAS:2.21 ± 0.05
						Low grade: 11.8%	ODI: 10.34 ± 1.03
						High grade: 7.9%	ODI: 10.34 ± 1.03
						High grade: 7.9%	JOA: 20.79 ± 0.40
Kulkani et al (2024) [31]	36 (N/A)	42.16 ± 19.7	TLIF	48	N/A	N/A	VAS
							Group A: 0.19
							Group B: 0.29
							ODI
							Group A: 5
							Group B: 5

Abbreviations: N/A, Non Available; M, male; F, female; ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; DF, deformity; DS, degenerative spondylolisthesis; SS, spondylolytic spondylolisthesis; ST, spinal stenosis; ROM, range of motion; BPS, bilateral pedicle screw; UPS, unilateral pedicle screw; LLIF, lateral lumbar interbody fusion; OLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion; PEEK, polyetheretherketone; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; TDR-1, Total Disc Replacement 1 level; TDR-2, Total Disc Replacement 2 level; TDR-3, Total Disc Replacement 3 level; SF- 12, 12- Item Short Form Health Survey; TLIF, transverse lumbar interbody fusion; VAS, visual analog scale; SF- 36, 36- Item Short Form Health Survey; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; JOABPEQ, Japan Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire; JOA, Japan Orthopedic Association.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.