{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.050072568940493466, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03265602322206096, 'mean_word_length': 4.865957446808511, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 5, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
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

L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis is a common pathology that can lead to operative intervention; as appreciation of sagittal balance has evolved, interbody fusions have gained popularity. Our study demonstrates the radiographic and clinical superiority of ALIFs over TLIFs in the form of PROMs at short-term and greater than one year follow up. Study Design. Retrospective cohort study. Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare segmental and regional radiographic parameters between anterior interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis, and to assess for changes in these parameters over time. Secondarily, we sought to compare clinical outcomes via patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between techniques and within groups over time. Summary of Background Data. Isthmic spondylolistheses are frequently treated with interbody fusion via ALIF or TLIF approaches. Robust comparisons of radiographic and clinical outcomes are lacking. Methods. We reviewed pre- and postoperative radiographs as well as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) elements for patients who received L5-S1 interbody fusions for isthmic spondylolisthesis in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) health system (2016–2020). Intraclass correlation testing was used for reliability assessments; Mann-Whitney U tests and Sign tests were employed for intercohort and intracohort comparative analyses, respectively. Results. ALIFs generated greater segmental and L4-S1 lordosis than TLIF, both at first postoperative visit (mean 26 days [SE = 4]; 11.3° vs. 1.3°, P < 0.001; 6.2° vs. 0.3°, P = 0.005) and at final follow-up (mean 410days [SE = 45]; 9.6° vs. 0.2°, P < 0.001; 7.9° vs. 2.1°, P = 0.005). ALIF also demonstrated greater increase in disc height than TLIF at first (9.6 vs. 5.5 mm, P < 0.001) and final follow-up (8.7 vs. 3.6 mm, P < 0.001). Disc height was maintained in the ALIF group but decreased over time in the TLIF cohort (ALIF 9.6 vs. 8.7 mm, P = 0.1; TLIF 5.5 vs. 3.6 mm, P < 0.001). Both groups demonstrated improvements in Pain Intensity and Pain Interference scores; ALIF patients also improved in Physical Function and Global Health - Physical domains. Conclusion. ALIF generates greater segmental lordosis, regional lordosis, and restoration of disc height compared to TLIF for treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis. Additionally, ALIF patients demonstrate significant improvements across more PROMs domains relative to TLIF patients. Level of Evidence: 3