ALIF vs. posterior fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: comparable efficacy but elevated risk of severe complications-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

backgroundOver the past years, there has been an upward trend in the total number of spinal fusion procedures worldwide. There are many different strategies to perform the lumbar fusion, each with some advantages. Hospital charges for lumbar spinal surgeries also have increased significantly, with great variation in the costs and recommendations of different surgical procedures. There has also been a trend increase in the rate of the use of interbody fusion implants compared to that of traditional decompression surgery, even though the former is known to incur higher costs. Access through the anterior route gained many followers after studies on sagittal balance, and its indication has also increased worldwide. However, this technique presents different patterns of complications from those observed in traditional posterior approaches.

objectivesThis study aims to determine the safety and efficacy of surgery in managing patients with symptomatic lumbar degenerative diseases by comparing the effectiveness of posterior and anterior approach techniques to treat this condition on patient-related outcomes. We also aimed to investigate the safety of these surgical interventions by including perioperative complication data.

methodsA systematic search of multiple online databases was conducted up to August 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other high-quality retrospective studies comparing outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior fusion techniques (PLF, PLIF, TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. The primary outcomes assessed included the Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analogue Scale, and overall clinical improvement. Secondary outcomes encompassed complications such as mortality, infections, gastrointestinal complications, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), surgical site infections, and the need for blood transfusions, as well as length of hospital stay and operative duration. Pooled effect estimates were calculated and presented as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) at the two-year follow-up.

resultsRegarding VAS and ODI, anterior and posterior approaches were similar in analyzing five RCTs. Including retrospective studies, we also found that the length of hospital stay and duration of surgery were comparable between the two approaches. Anterior approaches had a lower rate of patients requiring blood transfusions OR 0,69[0.60,0,80]. Anterior approaches showed higher rates of mortality (0,21%) OR1,33[1.10,1.62], deep vein thrombosis (0,65%) 1.73 [1.35, 2.20], and gastrointestinal complications (4,9%) OR 2.19 [1.73, 2.78].

conclusionClinical outcomes measured by VAS and ODI were comparable between anterior and posterior approaches, demonstrating similar efficacy in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. However, the safety profiles varied significantly. Anterior approaches carried higher rates of severe complications, including mortality, DVT, and gastrointestinal events, while posterior techniques were linked to increased blood transfusion needs. Given the elevated risk of severe complications with ALIF, posterior approaches should be prioritized as the first-line option for lumbar degenerative disease.