BackgroundDifferent fusion techniques were introduced in clinical practice in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease, however, no evidence has been provided on the advantages of one technique over another.The Objective of This StudyIs to assess the potential impact of circumferential fusion employing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) vs. direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) on pedicle screw stability.Materials and MethodsThis is a single-center prospective evaluation of consecutive 138 patients with degenerative instability of lumbar spinal segments. Either conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with posterior fusion or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) using cages of standard dimensions, were applied. The conventional open technique was used to supplement TLIF with pedicle screws while percutaneous screw placement was used in patients treated with DLIF. The duration of the follow-up accounted for 24 months. Signs of pedicle screws loosening (PSL) and bone union after fusion were assessed by the results of CT imaging. Fisher‘s exact test was used to assess the differences in the rate of CT loosening and revision surgery because of implant instability. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between potential factors and complication rate.ResultsThe rate of PSL detected by CT and relevant revision surgery in groups treated with TLIF and DLIF accounted for 25 (32.9%) vs. 2 (3.2%), respectively, for the former and 9 (12.0%) vs. 0 (0%) for the latter (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0043) respectively. According to the results of logistic regression, a decrease in radiodensity values and a greater number of levels fused were associated with a rise in PSL rate. DLIF application in patients with radiodensity below 140 HU was associated with a considerable decrease in complication rate. Unipolar or bipolar pseudoarthrosis in patients operated on with TLIF was associated with a rise in PSL rate while patients treated with DLIF tolerate delayed interbody fusion formation. In patients treated with TLIF supplementary total or partial posterior fusion resulted in a decline in PSL rate.ConclusionEven though the supplementary posterior fusion may considerably reduce the rate of PSL in patients treated with TLIF, the application of DLIF provide greater stability resulting in a substantial decline in PSL rate and relevant revision surgery.

Introduction Various spondylodesis techniques are used in patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine, but the benefits of these techniques have not been proven.Objective of the study was to assess the effect of the type of fusion on the incidence of implant instability and related revision surgeries.Material and Methods This monocentric prospective study included 133 patients with degenerative stenosis of the lumbar spine and confirmed instability of spinal motion segments. Patients underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with a single cage or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) using standard-sized cages. The conventional open technique was used to supplement TLIF with pedicle screws while percutaneous screw placement was applied in patients treated with DLIF. The duration of follow-up was 18 months. Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the incidence of fixator instability based on MSCT and revision interventions. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between potential risk factors and complication rates.Results The use of DLIF detected by MSCT (32.9 vs 3.6%, p < 0.0001) resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of screw instability and associated revision interventions (11.8 vs 0%, p = 0.0122). The results of logistic regression, taking into account factors such as bone density and the number of levels at which spondylodesis was performed, confirm the relationship between the reduced incidence of complications and the use of DLIF technology. Conclusion Using DLIF instead of TLIF in patients with degenerative stenosis at the lumbar spine level can lead to a significant reduction in the frequency of screw instability and associated revision surgeries.