Glenn R. Buttermann, MD
description
Transcript of Glenn R. Buttermann, MD
![Page 1: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Glenn R. Buttermann, MD
XLIF vs ALIF Combined with PSF Results in a
Community Practice
1
![Page 2: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction• XLIF combined with posterior spinal fusion has increased in
popularity for patients with advanced degenerative spinal conditions as well as selective deformity conditions.
• Prior studies have predominantly been from academic institutions or by authors who had a financial relationship to a manufacturer with the potential for bias in reported outcomes.
• The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes of an XLIF cohort and compare to a previous prospective cohort of traditional 2-level anterior/posterior spinal fusion patients treated for advanced degenerative disc disease.
2
![Page 3: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Present Study• Indications for XLIF patient (n=41) were primary surgical fusion for
lumbar DDD, adjacent segment degenerative condition, or as part of a hybrid procedure for spinal deformity.
• Prospective study: Visual Analog Scale for back pain and leg pain, pain drawing, ODI.
• Follow-up periods were at six-month to one year intervals with minimum two-year follow-up.
• Comparative anterior/posterior spinal fusion cohort (n=50) had similar prospective outcomes evaluation.
3
![Page 4: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
XLIF/PSF vs ASF/PSF
4
Age (mean +/- SD) 59.1 ± 18.8 44.0 ± 11.5Female (%) 78 68Smokers (%) 10 50Work Comp/Lit (%) 5 48Osteoporosis (%) 24 36EBL (ml, mean +/- SD) 283 ± 188 498 ± 297
XLIF/PSF ASF/PSF
![Page 5: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Major XLIF Dx• Primary Degenerative condition
Example: L45 post-lami DDDPreop Postop
5
![Page 6: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Major XLIF Dx• Adjacent segment degenerative condition
Example: L23 Adj DDD/stenosis/retrolisthesisPreop Postop
6
![Page 7: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Major XLIF Dx: Adult DeformityExample: AIS lumbar motion segment sparing method
7
![Page 8: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Major XLIF Dx: Adult Deformity• Degenerative scoliosis, spondylolisthesis &
stenosis
8
![Page 9: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Low Back & Leg Pain Outcomes
9
0
2
4
6
8
10
PRE-OP 7-12 MONTH 1-2 YEARS 2-4 YEARS
VAS
FOLLOW-UP PERIOD
Fig. 1, BACK PAIN
XLIF/PSF (n=41)
ASF/PSF (n=50)
0
2
4
6
8
10
PRE-OP 7-12 MONTH 1-2 YEARS 2-4 YEARS
VAS
FOLLOW-UP PERIOD
Fig. 2, LEG PAIN
XLIF/PSF (n=41)
ASF/PSF (n=50)
![Page 10: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Pain Drawing & ODI Outcomes
10
02468
101214161820
PRE-OP 7-12 MONTH 1-2 YEARS 2-4 YEARS
PAIN
AR
EA
FOLLOW-UP PERIOD
Fig. 3, PAIN DRAWING
XLIF/PSF (n=41)
ASF/PSF (n=50)
01020304050607080
PRE-OP 7-12 MONTH 1-2 YEARS 2-4 YEARS
Deg
ree
of D
isab
ility
FOLLOW-UP PERIOD
Fig. 4, OSWESTRY DISABILITYXLIF/PSF (n=41)
ASF/PSF (n=50)
![Page 11: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Results• Most common indication for XLIF was adjacent level
degenerative condition s/p prior lumbar fusion (29 of 41 patients).
• Both XLIF/PSF and ASF/PSF groups had significantly improved outcomes at all follow-up periods.
• There was no significant difference in outcomes between XLIF/PSF and ASF/PSF groups, however demographics differ between cohorts.
• Patients in both XLIF and AP fusion groups who had interbody device subsidence were found to have osteoporosis.
• Transient neurological deficits were most common at L4-5 in the XLIF cohort.
11
![Page 12: Glenn R. Buttermann, MD](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062323/5681672c550346895ddbca06/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Discussion• The outcomes of XLIF combined with PSF were
statistically similar to ASF/PSF outcomes in patients undergoing primary fusion.
• The XLIF approach avoids potential complications related to revision ASF approach in patients who have adjacent level conditions yet obtains similar clinical success.
• Patients with osteoporosis require additional individualized treatment:
12Subsidence in osteoporotic pt.