Study design:

Retrospective review of a database cohort.

Objective:

To compare short-term outcome measures and complications between single-level posterolateral fusion (PLF), single-level posterior interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF), and combined single-level PLF+PLIF/TLIF.

Summary of background data:

Both PLF and interbody fusion are well-established procedures for degenerative spinal disease. However, there is lack of consensus as to the ideal surgical approach for specific applications. Additionally, the difference in risk of complications with traditional PLF, interbody fusion with posterior approach, and circumferential fusion is still contested.

Methods:

The ACS NSQIP database was used to identify 24,228 patients who underwent either a single-level PLF, single-level PLIF/TLIF, or combined single-level PLF+PLIF/TLIF between 2014 and 2017. To control for potential confounding variables, exact matching was used to pair individuals from each treatment group based on several factors, including sex, age, body mass index, various comorbidities, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. After appropriate matching, the rate of various short-term outcome measures and complications were compared between the three treatment groups.

Results:

After exact matching, 13,251 patients were included in the final analysis. The rates of non-home discharge, overall surgical complications, and bleeding requiring transfusion were significantly lower in the PLF group and PLIF/TLIF group relative to the PLF+PLIF/TLIF group (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The rate of deep venous thrombosis was lower in the PLIF/TLIF group relative to the PLF group (p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in other medical complications, unplanned readmission, reoperation, or return to the OR between any of the treatment groups.

Conclusions:

The combination of single-level PLF+PLIF/TLIF is associated with higher rates of short-term complications relative to either single-level PLF or PLIF/TLIF alone. The associated risks of this therapy should be considered when considering surgical management for lumbar disease.

Level of evidence:

3.