logo
ResearchBunny Logo
A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)

Medicine and Health

A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)

J. Rathbone, M. Rackham, et al.

This systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by John Rathbone, Matthew Rackham, David Nielsen, So Mang Lee, Wayne Hing, Sukhman Riar, and Matthew Scott-Young highlights the advantages of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) over traditional posterior techniques in surgical outcomes for spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease. Discover how ALIF offers shorter surgery times and less blood loss while achieving comparable fusion rates.

00:00
00:00
~3 min • Beginner • English
Abstract
Purpose: To compare stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with posterior fusion techniques—posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)—in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) and spondylolisthesis via systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Systematic searches of Cochrane Register of Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (inception–2022); two-stage independent screening by three reviewers; data extraction and quality assessment by two reviewers; random-effects meta-analyses. Results: From 16,435 records, 21 studies (n=3,686) were included (1 RCT; 20 non-randomized). ALIF showed significantly shorter surgical time and lower blood loss than TLIF/PLIF; no significant differences versus PLF for these metrics (p=0.08 for time). Length of stay was shorter with ALIF versus TLIF, but not versus PLIF/PLF. Fusion rates were similar between ALIF and all posterior approaches. PROMs were largely comparable between ALIF and PLIF/TLIF. Compared with PLF, ALIF showed better VAS back pain at 1 year (n=21, MD −1.00, CI −1.47 to −0.53) and 2 years (2 studies, n=67, MD −1.39, CI −1.67 to −1.11); ODI at 2 years favored ALIF (2 studies, n=67, MD −7.59, CI −13.33 to −1.85; I2=70%); JOAS low back pain favored ALIF at 1 year (n=21, MD −0.50, CI −0.78 to −0.22) and 2 years (n=67, MD −0.36, CI −0.65 to −0.07). VAS leg pain at 2 years favored PLF (n=46, MD 0.50, CI 0.12 to 0.88). Adverse events were similar across approaches. Conclusions: Stand-alone ALIF reduces operative time and blood loss relative to PLIF/TLIF and shortens hospitalization versus TLIF. Fusion and most PROMs are comparable to PLIF/TLIF, while several PROMs favor ALIF over PLF. Adverse event rates are comparable.
Publisher
European Spine Journal
Published On
Apr 18, 2023
Authors
John Rathbone, Matthew Rackham, David Nielsen, So Mang Lee, Wayne Hing, Sukhman Riar, Matthew Scott-Young
Tags
ALIF
spondylolisthesis
degenerative disc disease
posterior fusion
surgical outcomes
meta-analysis
PROMs
Listen, Learn & Level Up
Over 10,000 hours of research content in 25+ fields, available in 12+ languages.
No more digging through PDFs, just hit play and absorb the world's latest research in your language, on your time.
listen to research audio papers with researchbunny