Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes between ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF over 2-year follow-up: a comparative study

Table 2 Comparison of demographic and perioperative data between anterolateral and posterior approach

Characteristic	Group		p value
Characteristic	Anterolateral (A/OLIF, n = 170)	Posterior (TLIF, n = 178)	p value
Correction levels	247	254
Age-year	60.7 ± 12.3	65.2 ± 11.4	< 0.01**
Age-year	(58.8–62.6)	(63.6–66.9)	< 0.01**
Female gender (%)	68/101	112/178	0.65
Female gender (%)	(67.3)	(62.9)	0.65
BMI-Kg/m²	26.7 ± 4.3	25.4 ± 3.3	< 0.01**
BMI-Kg/m²	(25–26)	(24.7–26)	< 0.01**
HLoS-days	8.2 ± 4.1	7.7 ± 3.9	0.26
HLoS-days	(7.5–8.8)	(7.1–8.3)	0.26
OPD—min (95% CI)	366.9 ± 92.7	358.1 ± 79.8	0.34
OPD—min (95% CI)	(352.9–380.9)	(346.3–369.9)	0.34
EBL– mL (95% CI)	466.5 ± 494.7	519.4 ± 294.7	0.22
EBL– mL (95% CI)	(391.6–541.4)	(475.8–563)	0.22
Fusion rate—no. (%) (Grade II and III)	233/247	241/254	0.57
Fusion rate—no. (%) (Grade II and III)	(94.3)	(94.9)	0.57
Subsidence—no. (%)	22/247	41/254	0.03*
Subsidence—no. (%)	(8.9)	(16.1)	0.03*

p value < 0.05 was consider statistically significant. Values expressed as the mean ± standard deviation and 95 confidence interval range in the brackets. p < 0.05*, p < 0.01**
ALIF Anterior lumbar interbody fusion, OLIF Oblique lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, HLoS Hospital length of stay, EBL Estimated blood loss, BMI Body mass index, OPD Operative duration

ISSN: 1749-799X