European Spine Journal - 2026-08-26 - Journal Article; Review
Comparison of anterolateral versus posterior lumbar fusion techniques in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Restrepo Buitrago JA, Cruz Tobón N, Preciado Mesa EE, Rivera Suárez CA
Topics
Key Takeaway
In obese patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion, anterolateral approaches reduced transfusion risk (8.89% vs. 14.09%, RR=0.88) and unplanned revision (2.46% vs. 3.56%, RR=0.70) versus posterior approaches, but were associated with worse VAS-Back and ODI scores at 12 months that did not reach MCID.
Summary Depth
Choose how much analysis to show on this article page.
Summary
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared anterolateral (ALA) versus posterior (PA) lumbar interbody fusion approaches exclusively in obese patients across 8 observational studies. ALA significantly reduced transfusion risk (RR=0.88, p=0.002) and unplanned revision surgery (RR=0.70, p=0.002). At 12 months, ALA showed statistically higher VAS-Back (MD=1.11 cm) and ODI (MD=8.69%) scores, but neither difference exceeded published MCID thresholds for either instrument.
Key Limitation
Extreme heterogeneity in QoL outcomes at 3 and 6 months (I²=83.9–97.3%) renders pooled VAS and ODI estimates at those time points unreliable and potentially misleading.
Original Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Obesity increases the risk of developing lumbar spine disease and the need for subsequent surgical intervention. However, there is no consensus regarding the safety profiles and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes of different lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) approaches in obese patients. This review compares perioperative, postoperative and QoL outcomes between anterolateral (ALA) and posterior approaches (PA) in obese patients undergoing elective LIF.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies comparing ALA and PA in adult obese patients undergoing elective LIF. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 statistics, and analyses were performed using R (Version 4.5.2).
RESULTS
Eight observational studies comprising 26,030 obese patients undergoing LIF were included, of whom 10,230 (39.30%) underwent an ALA. Risk of bleeding requiring transfusion was significantly lower in the ALA group (8.89% vs. 14.09%; RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.81, 0.95; p = 0.002; I 2 = 0%), as was the risk of unplanned revision surgery (2.46% vs. 3.56%; RR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.55, 0.88; p = 0.002; I 2 = 0%). No significant differences were observed between groups in mean back pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS-Back) scores at 3 months (MD = 1.6 cm; 95% CI = -11.79, 14.99; p = 0.37; I 2 = 90.3%) or 6 months (MD = 0.45 cm; 95% CI = -10.56, 11.46; p = 0.70; I 2 = 83.9%). Similarly, mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores did not differ at 3 months (MD = 3.82%; 95% CI = -169.79, 169.42; p = 0.82; I 2 = 97.3%) or 6 months (MD = 2.51%; 95% CI = -96.86%, 101.88%; p = 0.80; I 2 = 91.8%). However, ALA were associated with significantly higher mean VAS-Back (MD = 1.11 cm; 95% CI = 0.52, 1.70; p < 0.01; I 2 = 0%) and ODI scores (MD = 8.69%; 95% CI = 5.36, 12.02; p < 0.01; I 2 = 0%) at 12 months.
CONCLUSION
For obese patients undergoing elective LIF, ALA reduced the risk of bleeding requiring transfusion and unplanned revision surgery compared to PA. No significant differences in mean VAS-Back or ODI scores were observed at 3 or 6 months. Nevertheless, ALA were associated with higher mean VAS-Back and ODI scores at 12 months. Despite reaching statistical significance, these differences did not attain the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for either outcome.