Variability and contributions to cost associated with anterior versus posterior approaches to lumbar interbody fusion

ALIF Versus TLIF for L5-S1 Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: ALIF Demonstrates Superior Segmental and Regional Radiographic Outcomes and Clinical Improvements Across More Patient-reported Outcome Measures Domains

“…1,10,11 However, the cost of these two procedures has been shown to be substantially different, with a combined ALIF/PSF approach having direct costs of almost $7000 USD more than TLIF/PSF. 22 Despite the fact that symptomatic isthmic spondylolistheses are prevalent and are most often treated via ALIF or TLIF, robust comparisons of segmental and regional radiographic outcomes for these two approaches are lacking. Our group sought to provide surgeons with clear expectations about both short and long-term difference at final follow-up (Figure 1).…”

C‐reactive protein to albumin ratio (CAR) in predicting surgical site infection (SSI) following instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)

“… 6 In addition, the cost from the prolonged hospital stay, readmission, and secondary surgical procedure constituted a serious concern for health‐care system. 1 …”

“…Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and pedicle screw fixation is increasingly used for treatment of various lumbar degenerative disease, for example, spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis, primarily due to technical ease, safety, and greater cost-effectiveness. 1,2 However, the postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) is relatively more prevalent in PLIF than in other types of procedure 3 and often results in undesirable, occasionally disastrous or even long-term consequences. 4 As was estimated, SSI occurred in 1.6% to 7.2% of patients who underwent PLIF for varying degenerative spine diseases, [5][6][7][8] and half was caused by multi-drug resistant bacteria, that is, methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE).…”

“…Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and pedicle screw fixation is increasingly used for treatment of various lumbar degenerative disease, for example, spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis, primarily due to technical ease, safety, and greater cost‐effectiveness 1,2 . However, the postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) is relatively more prevalent in PLIF than in other types of procedure 3 and often results in undesirable, occasionally disastrous or even long‐term consequences 4 .…”

“…Consequently, about 70% of SSIs required secondary surgery and one third necessitated revision surgery 6 . In addition, the cost from the prolonged hospital stay, readmission, and secondary surgical procedure constituted a serious concern for health‐care system 1 …”