Search

Study Design.This was a dual-center study over an eight-year period on patients undergoing single level fusion surgery with either posterior- (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We analyzed prospectively collected pre- and postoperative data from the national Danish surgical spine database (DaneSpine).Objective.The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcome (PRO) 2 years after TLIF or PLIF in patients with symptomatic lumbar mechanical disc degeneration.Summary of Background Data.PLIF and TLIF are well-described techniques for treating lumbar mechanical disc degeneration but whether the theoretical differences between the two techniques translate to different clinical outcomes is unknown.Methods.The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were scores on the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and visual analog scale (VAS) and the rate of intraoperative complications. To minimize baseline differences between the groups, propensity-score matching was employed in a 1:1 fashion, balancing the groups on preoperative factors including age, sex, back and leg pain, ODI, EQ-5D, and previous spine surgery.Result.The matched cohort included 211 patients in each cohort. There was no significant difference between the groups in the mean score on the ODI at two years (PLIF: 33 ± 20 vs. TLIF: 35 ± 20, P = 0.328). We found no statistically significant differences in EQ-5D score (0.54 ± 0.35 vs. 0.51 ± 0.34, P = 0.327), VAS score for back pain (47 ± 32 vs. 48 ± 29, P = 0.570) or leg pain (42 ± 33 vs. 41 ± 32, P = 0.936) between the PLIF and TLIF groups, respectively, at 2-year follow-up. Dural tears occurred in 9.5% in the PLIF group and 1.9% in the TLIF group (P = 0.002) corresponding to a relative risk of 5.0 (95% CI 1.7-14.4).Conclusion.We found no significant difference in PRO at 2-year follow-up between PLIF and TLIF for the treatment of lumbar disc degeneration. PLIF is associated with a five times higher risk of dural tears.Level of Evidence: 3.

STUDY DESIGN: A registry-based comparative cohort study with 2-year follow-up.OBJECTIVE: To assess whether Modic changes (MCs) are associated with health-related quality of life, long-term physical disability, back- or leg pain after discectomy.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have failed to show a clinically significant association between MCs and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after discectomy.METHODS: Data from the Danish National Spine Registry on patients undergoing first-time lumbar discectomy at a single institution from 2014 to 2017 with an accessible preoperative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging, complete preoperative, and 2-year follow-up questionnaires were obtained. PROs including Oswestry disability index (ODI), European Quality of Life-Five Dimensions (EQ-5D), visual analogue scale (VAS) back and leg pain, and patient satisfaction were collected. Patients were stratified based on the presence (+MC) or absence (-MC) of MCs on the preoperative MRI.RESULTS: Of 620 patients included, MCs were present in 290 patients (47%). Of these, MC type 1 (MC-1) was present in 73 (25%) and MC type 2 (MC-2) in 217 (75%) patients. Preoperative data for ODI, EQ-5D, VAS-BP, and VAS-LP were comparable for the +MC and -MC groups. Both groups had a statistically significant improvement in PROs from baseline compared with 2-year follow-up (P CONCLUSION: MCs were not found to be associated with health-related quality of life, disability, back- or leg pain, or patient satisfaction 2 years after discectomy.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.