Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion In degenerative spondylolisthesis: An attempt to evaluate the superiority of one method over the other
- PMID: 27565009
- DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.08.017
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion In degenerative spondylolisthesis: An attempt to evaluate the superiority of one method over the other
Abstract
Background: Various surgical procedures have been recommended for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis,but Controversy still exists regarding the optimal surgical technique . In this study,we compared the clinical and radiologic outcome of the Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(TLIF) method with the Instrumented Posterolateral fusion(PLF) in these patients.
Methods: The study population in this retrospective study consisted of 145 consecutive patients of degenerative spondylolisthesis who had undergone lumbar fusion in our institute between September 2010 and October 2013. The patients were divided into two treatment groups, where either instrumented PLF with pedicle screw(180° fusion) or TLIF procedure(360° fusion) was done. The follow-up was performed clinically using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS)and global outcome. Outcome scores were assessed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Radiographs were obtained postoperatively and at regular intervals for 24 months. Perioperative outcomes such as surgery time, blood loss, length of hospital stay and incidence of surgical complications were also recorded.
Results: 80 patients underwent TLIF procedure and 65 patients were included in the instrumented PLF group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age,gender,Body Mass Index,smoking and comorbid conditions(p>0.05). No significant difference existed in Pre-operative VAS for back pain,VAS for leg pain and ODI between the two groups(p>0.05). There were no significant group differences in the operation level,hospital stay and surgical complications(all p>0.05). Blood loss, operation time and fusion success rate were significantly greater in the TLIF group than in the PLF group (all P<0.05). Significant differences between groups concerning VAS for back pain,ODI and Global outcome were present at final follow-up. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to VAS for leg pain.
Conclusion: Our study showed that TLIF is superior to PLF with respect to functional outcome and fusion rate.
Keywords: Fusion rate; Outcome; Posterolateral fusion; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spine J. 2018 Jun;18(6):1088-1098. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.01.028. Epub 2018 Feb 13. Spine J. 2018. PMID: 29452283
-
Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009 Apr;22(2):114-21. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318169bff5. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009. PMID: 19342933
-
Dynamic stabilization for L4-5 spondylolisthesis: comparison with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with more than 2 years of follow-up.Neurosurg Focus. 2016 Jan;40(1):E3. doi: 10.3171/2015.10.FOCUS15441. Neurosurg Focus. 2016. PMID: 26721577
-
Posterolateral fusion with interbody for lumbar spondylolisthesis is associated with less repeat surgery than posterolateral fusion alone.Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015 Nov;138:117-23. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.08.014. Epub 2015 Aug 20. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015. PMID: 26318363
-
Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion.J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul;21(1):67-74. doi: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14276. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014. PMID: 24980588 Review.
Cited by
-
Expandable spacers provide better functional outcomes than static spacers in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.J Spine Surg. 2019 Sep;5(3):315-319. doi: 10.21037/jss.2019.06.07. J Spine Surg. 2019. PMID: 31663042 Free PMC article.
-
Postoperative Evaluation of Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) of Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis After Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion (PLF): A prospective Study With a 2-Year Follow-Up.Open Orthop J. 2017 Dec 11;11:1423-1431. doi: 10.2174/1874325001711011423. eCollection 2017. Open Orthop J. 2017. PMID: 29387287 Free PMC article.
-
Characteristics of interbody bone graft fusion after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion according to intervertebral space division.Front Surg. 2022 Oct 25;9:1004230. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1004230. eCollection 2022. Front Surg. 2022. PMID: 36386508 Free PMC article.
-
Utilization and Economic Impact of Posterolateral Fusion and Posterior/Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries in the United States.Global Spine J. 2019 Apr;9(2):185-190. doi: 10.1177/2192568218790557. Epub 2018 Aug 15. Global Spine J. 2019. PMID: 30984499 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison between modified facet joint fusion and posterolateral fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study.BMC Surg. 2022 Jan 28;22(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12893-022-01468-4. BMC Surg. 2022. PMID: 35090435 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical