We have located links that may give you full text access.
One-Level versus Two-Level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) from L4-S1: Comparison of Complications, Alignment, and Patient Outcomes.
Spine 2024 August 28
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes in patients undergoing one-level or two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L4-S1.
BACKGROUND: Although ALIF may deliver restoration of lumbar lordosis and improvement in clinical outcomes, it also carries risk of complications including major vascular injury. Whether one-level and two-level ALIF offers similar outcomes is not known.
METHODS: Adults who underwent one-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 ALIF and two-level L4-S1 ALIF at a single academic institution were identified. Patient demographics, procedural characteristics, improvement in spinopelvic alignment, and one-year postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications were compared. Multivariate regression analyses, accounting for age, gender, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), were also performed.
RESULTS: In total, 158 ALIF patients (111 one-level and 47 two-level) were included, with mean age of 51.4 years, 57.0% female, mean CCI of 1.2, and mean follow-up of 27.0 months. Surgical time (147.3 min vs. 124.6 min, P=0.002) and hospital length of stay (3.5 d vs. 2.9 d, P=0.036) were higher for two-level ALIF. One-year postoperatively, two-level ALIF patients had more caudal apex of lordosis (P=0.016) and 4.1 mm (P=0.002) and 2.0 mm (P=0.019) higher L4-L5 anterior and posterior disc heights, respectively. PROMs were not statistically different across groups (P>0.05). Finally, two-level ALIF patients were 10.9 times more likely to have in-hospital complications (P=0.040), such as intraoperative vascular injury (11.1% vs. 1.5%, P=0.040) or postoperative ileus (7.4% vs. 0.0%, P=0.027), than one-level ALIF patients.
CONCLUSION: In this investigation with greater than one-year follow-up, two-level ALIF in the L4-S1 spine had higher procedural time, length of stay, and approach-related complications than one-level ALIF. Although there were minor improvements in alignment with two-level ALIF, PROMs were comparable with improvements from baseline to last follow-up. These findings may help surgeons carefully weigh the risks and benefits of one- versus two-level ALIF when determining surgical plans for patients.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes in patients undergoing one-level or two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L4-S1.
BACKGROUND: Although ALIF may deliver restoration of lumbar lordosis and improvement in clinical outcomes, it also carries risk of complications including major vascular injury. Whether one-level and two-level ALIF offers similar outcomes is not known.
METHODS: Adults who underwent one-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 ALIF and two-level L4-S1 ALIF at a single academic institution were identified. Patient demographics, procedural characteristics, improvement in spinopelvic alignment, and one-year postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications were compared. Multivariate regression analyses, accounting for age, gender, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), were also performed.
RESULTS: In total, 158 ALIF patients (111 one-level and 47 two-level) were included, with mean age of 51.4 years, 57.0% female, mean CCI of 1.2, and mean follow-up of 27.0 months. Surgical time (147.3 min vs. 124.6 min, P=0.002) and hospital length of stay (3.5 d vs. 2.9 d, P=0.036) were higher for two-level ALIF. One-year postoperatively, two-level ALIF patients had more caudal apex of lordosis (P=0.016) and 4.1 mm (P=0.002) and 2.0 mm (P=0.019) higher L4-L5 anterior and posterior disc heights, respectively. PROMs were not statistically different across groups (P>0.05). Finally, two-level ALIF patients were 10.9 times more likely to have in-hospital complications (P=0.040), such as intraoperative vascular injury (11.1% vs. 1.5%, P=0.040) or postoperative ileus (7.4% vs. 0.0%, P=0.027), than one-level ALIF patients.
CONCLUSION: In this investigation with greater than one-year follow-up, two-level ALIF in the L4-S1 spine had higher procedural time, length of stay, and approach-related complications than one-level ALIF. Although there were minor improvements in alignment with two-level ALIF, PROMs were comparable with improvements from baseline to last follow-up. These findings may help surgeons carefully weigh the risks and benefits of one- versus two-level ALIF when determining surgical plans for patients.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app