Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Aug;7(5):482-490.
doi: 10.1177/2192568217701103. Epub 2017 May 31.

Posterolateral Fusion Versus Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ryan C Campbell  1   2 , Ralph J Mobbs  1   2 , Victor M Lu  3 , Joshua Xu  2   3 , Prashanth J Rao  1   2 , Kevin Phan  1   2   3
Affiliations
Review

Posterolateral Fusion Versus Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ryan C Campbell et al. Global Spine J. 2017 Aug.

Abstract

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Current surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) involves decompression of the spinal canal followed by fusion with or without interbody. The additional functional and operative benefits derived from interbody inclusion has yet to be thoroughly established with a number of recent studies producing conflicting results. Thus, we aim to compare the functional and operative outcomes after fusion against interbody fusion in the treatment of DS.

Methods: This systematic review of the literature comparing posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) outcomes in the treatment of DS was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic searches of 6 databases yielded 386 articles from database inception to July 2016, which were screening against established criteria for inclusion into this study.

Results: A total of 6 studies, satisfied criteria and reported outcomes for 721 patients. Fusion alone was performed in 458 (63.5%) patients and interbody fusion was performed in 263 (36.5%) patients. Functional outcomes Oswestry Disability Index (P = .29) and visual analog scale (P = .13) were not statistically different between the 2 approaches. Furthermore, there was no significant inferiority between fusion alone and with interbody in terms of the operative outcomes of blood loss (P = .38), reoperation rate (P = .66), hospital stay (P = .96), complication rate (P = .78), or fusion rate (P = .15).

Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in functional and operative outcomes following fusion alone versus with interbody. Additional subgroup analysis of intrinsic DS features in future large, prospective, randomized controlled trials will improve the validity of these findings.

Keywords: degenerative spondylolisthesis; interbody fusion; posterolateral fusion; spine; spondylolisthesis; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA search strategy for the present systematic review and meta-analysis.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Forest plots comparing posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion in terms of postoperative Oswestry Disasbility Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Forest plots comparing posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion in terms of fusion rate, reoperations, overall complication rate, hospital time and operative time.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Forest plots comparing posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion in terms of degree of slip and slip local angle.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Koreckij TD, Fischgrund JS. Degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:236–241. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000298. - PubMed
    1. Schroeder GD, Kepler CK, Kurd MF, et al. Rationale for the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:E1161–E1166. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001116. - PubMed
    1. Steiger F, Becker HJ, Standaert CJ, et al. Surgery in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications, outcomes and complications. A systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:945–973. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-3144-3. - PubMed
    1. Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, et al. Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1424–1434. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1508788. - PubMed
    1. Kleinstueck F, Fekete T, Mannion A, et al. To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer? Eur Spine J. 2012;21:268–275. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources