Do TLIF and PLIF Techniques Differ in Perioperative Complications? - Comparison of Complications Rates of Two High Volume Centers

Study Design Retrospective bicentric Cohort Study.Objective Posterior (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have been clinically proven for the surgical treatment of degenerative spinal disorders. Despite many retrospective studies, the superiority of either technique has not been proven to date. In the literature, the complication rate of the conventional PLIF technique is reported to be significantly higher, but with inconsistent complication recording. In this retrospective bicentric study, a less invasive PLIF technique was compared with the conventional TLIF technique and complications were recorded using the validated SAVES V2 classification system.Methods 1142 patients underwent PLIF (702) or TLIF (n = 440) up to 3 levels in two specialized centers. Epidemiological data, intra- and postoperative complications during hospitalization and after discharge were analyzed according to SAVES V2.Results The overall complication rate was 13.74%. TLIF-patients had slightly significant more complications than PLIF-patients (TLIF = 16.6%/PLIF = 11.9%, P= .0338). Accordingly, complications during revision surgeries were more frequent in the first cohort (TLIF = 20.9%/PLIF = 12.6%; P= .03252). In primary interventions, the surgical technique did not correlate with the complication rate (TLIF = 12.4%/PLIF = 11.7%). There were no significant differences regarding severity of complications.Conclusions An important component of this work is the complication recording according to a uniform classification system (SAVES V2). In contrast to previous literature, we could demonstrate that there is not a significant difference between the two surgical techniques.