Comparative Study on the Effectiveness of Posterolateral Fusion vs. Interbody Fusion in Isthmic/Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36552/pjns.v27i2.870Keywords:
Isthmic Spondylolisthesis, Posterolateral FusionAbstract
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of posterolateral fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative/isthmic spondylolisthesis in terms of postoperative pain and postoperative complications.
Materials & Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted and 74 patients were included. Group A (n=37) patients underwent PLF, whereas Group B (n = 37) patients underwent TLIF. The pain was assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS), and for disability, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used.
Results: In Group-A, pre- and post-op back pain mean scores were 3.86 & 0.78, leg pain mean scores were 1.32 & 0.54 while ODI mean scores were 22.51 & 8.59, respectively(P ? 0.05). In Group B, pre- and post-op back pain mean scores were 3.41 & 0.46, leg pain mean scores were 0.84 & 0.30 and ODI mean scores were 19.89 & 6.59, respectively (P > 0.05). The prevalence of minimal disabilities in the TLIF (73%, 78%, 81%, 86%, & 91%) group was relatively more than in the PSF (70%, 75%, 78%, 81%, & 86%) group during pre-op, and post-op phases (2 & 6 weeks, 3 & 6 months). Relatively more patients (8.1% vs. 5.4%) with moderate disability were found in the PSF group as compared to the TLIF group.
Conclusion: The study concluded that TLIF is a safe and more effective procedure than PLF for isthmic/degenerative spondylolisthesis. It is a better surgical procedure for post-operative back pain, leg pain, complications, and disability.
References
Spoor JK, Dallenga AH, Gadjradj PS, de Klerk L, van Biezen FC, Bijvoet HW, Harhangi BS. A novel noninstrumented surgical approach for foramen reconstruction for isthmic spondylolisthesis in patients with radiculopathy: preliminary clinical and radiographic outcomes. Neurosurgical Focus, 2018; 44 (1): E7.
Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Rovsing H, Monrad H, Gebuhr P. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: an epidemiological perspective: the Copenhagen Osteoarthritis Study. Spine, 2007; 32 (1): 120-5.
Lee ET, Lee SA, Soh Y, Yoo MC, Lee JH, Chon J. Association of lumbar paraspinal muscle morphometry with degenerative spondylolisthesis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021; 18 (8): 4037.
Modi HN, Goel SA. What to consider in degenerative spondylolisthesis: posterolateral fusion or transforaminal interbody fusion.
Shadani I, Rahmani N, Basampour SA. Evaluation of the prevalence and predisposing factors of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of previous studies. Journal of Babol University of Medical Sciences, 201; 17 (8): 55-62.
Pasha IF, Qureshi MA, Farooq M, Talha M, Ahmed N, Ismail J. Assessment with Oswestry disability index in surgically treated patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis: experience in 96 patients. J Pak
Med Assoc. 2015; 65 (11 Suppl. 3): S166-70.
Lara-Almunia M, Gomez-Moreta JA, Hernandez-Vicente J. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with instrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis: description and association of clinico-surgical variables with prognosis in a series of 36 cases. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 2015 ;1: 9.
Wu AM, Chen CH, Shen ZH, Feng ZH, Weng WQ, Li SM, Chi YL, Yin LH, Ni WF. The outcomes of minimally invasive versus open posterior approach spinal fusion in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: the current evidence from prospective comparative studies. Bio Med Research International, 2017: 2017.
Etemadifar MR, Hadi A, Masouleh MF. Posterolateral instrumented fusion with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Journal of Craniovertebral Junction & Spine, 2016; 7 (1): 43.
Winder MJ, Gambhir S. Comparison of ALIF vs. XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion: pros, cons, and literature review. Journal of Spine Surgery, 2016; 2 (1): 2.
Fallatah S. Posterior inter-body fusion in lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 2013; 8 (1): 7-11.
Habib HA. Posterolateral fusion versus posterior interbody fusion in adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Menoufia Medical Journal, 2014; 27 (1): 191.
Akter GS, MdZ H, Sana DE, Nayem SI, Islam MS. Comparison of Simple Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Circumferential Fusion for Treatment of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis. Orthop Muscular Syst. 2017; 6 (248): 2161-0533.
Samuel AM, Moore HG, Cunningham ME. Treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: current concepts and new evidence. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 2017; 10: 521-9.
Abdelkader SG, El Zahlawy HN, Elkhateeb TM. Interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in treatment of low grade lytic spondylolisthesis. Acta Orthop Belg. 2019; 85 (3): 269-73.
Peng P, Chen K, Chen H, Zhang K, Sun J, Yang P,
Zhou F, Liu Y, Yang H, Mao H. Comparison of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation, 2020; 20: 107-12.
Farrokhi MR, Eghbal K, Mousavi SR, Moumani M, Bazyari K. Comparative Study between Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterolateral Fusion for Treatment of Spondylolisthesis: Clinical Outcomes and Spino-Pelvic Sagittal Balance Parameters. Indian Journal of Neurotrauma, 2021; 18 (01): 51-8.
Luo J, Cao K, Yu T, Li L, Huang S, Gong M, Cao C, Zou X. Comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis. Clinical Spine Surgery, 2017; 30 (7): E915-22.
Helenius I, Lamberg T, Österman K, Schlenzka D, Yrjönen T, Tervahartiala P, Seitsalo S, Poussa M, Remes V. Posterolateral, anterior, or circumferential fusion in situ for high-grade spondylolisthesis in young patients: a long-term evaluation using the Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire. Spine, 2006; 31 (2): 190-6.
DeWald CJ, Vartabedian JE, Rodts MF, Hammerberg KW. Evaluation and management of high-grade spondylolisthesis in adults. Spine, 2005; 30 (6S): S49-59.
Thomé C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Bäzner H, Pöckler-Schöniger C, Wöhrle J, Schmiedek P. Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2005; 3 (2): 129-41.
Spiker WR, Goz V, Brodke DS. Lumbar interbody fusions for degenerative spondylolisthesis: review of techniques, indications, and outcomes. Global Spine Journal, 2019; 9 (1): 77-84.
Schaeffer RL, Mendenhall W, Ott L. Elementary Survey Sampling, Fourth Edition. Duxbury Press, Belmont, California, 1990.
Abd Elghany H. Transforaminal lumbar inter body fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in degenerative lumbar spine diseases. Int J Adv Res Ortho. 2019; 2 (1): 180007.
Farid A, Elkholy A. Posterolateral fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the surgical treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Egyptian Spine Journal, 2018; 27 (1): 48-56.
Yadav S, Singh S, Arya RK, Kumar A, Kumar I, Jha A. Comparative analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral instrumented fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disorders. Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation, 2020; 27 (2): 173-8.
Burton MR, Dowling TJ, Mesfin FB. Isthmic spondylolisthesis. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2021.
Kelly JP, Alcala-Marquez C, Dawson JM, Mehbod AA, Pinto MR. Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented posterolateral versus instrumented posterolateral with transforaminal lumbar interbody single-level fusion. Journal of Spine Surgery, 2019; 5 (3): 351.
Ghasemi AA. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis: an attempt to evaluate the superiority of one method over the other. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 2016; 150: 1-5.
Levin JM, Tanenbaum JE, Steinmetz MP, Mroz TE, Overley SC. Posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Spine Journal, 2018; 18 (6): 1088-98.
Irianto KA, Hatmoko FW, Laskar PK. Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: The preferable surgical technique. Bali Medical Journal, 2018; 7 (1): 215-9.
Christensen A, Høy K, Bünger C, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Andersen T, Søgaard R. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation along side an RCT with a 2-year follow-up. European Spine Journal, 2014; 23: 1137-43.
Audat Z, Moutasem O, Yousef K, Mohammad B. Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. Singapore Medical Journal, 2012; 53 (3): 183-7.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Syed Ahmad Faizan, Mudassir Masaud, Zubair Mustafa Khan, Tariq Imran, Asif BashirThe work published by PJNS is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). Copyrights on any open access article published by Pakistan Journal of Neurological Surgery are retained by the author(s).
