Fusion and clinical outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis

Abstract

IntroductionLow-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (ISPL) is generally treated by circumferential fusion with interbody graft, although there is no consensus on technique. HypothesisThe various interbody fusion strategies provide satisfactory fusion rates and clinical results. MethodsA multicenter retrospective study analyzed lumbar interbody fusion for low-grade ISPL performed between March 2016 and March 2019. Techniques comprised: circumferential fusion on a posterior or a transforaminal approach (PLIF, TLIF: n=57), combined anterior (ALIF)+posterolateral fusion (ALIF+PLF: n=60), and ALIF+percutaneous posterior fixation (ALIF+PPF: n=55). Function was assessed on a lumbar and a radicular visual analog scale (AVS-L, VAS-R), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Short Form 12 (SF12). ResultsAmong the 129 patients, 85.3% showed fusion (Lenke 1 or 2), with no significant differences between the ALIF-PLF or ALIF-PPF groups and the PLIF or TLIF groups (p=0.3). Likewise, there was no difference in fusion rates between the ALIF-PPF and ALIF-PLF subgroups (p=0.28). VAS-L (p<0.001) and VAS-R (p<0.0001), ODI (p<0.001) and SF12 physical (PCS) (p<0.01) and mental component sores (MCS) (p<0.001) all showed significant improvement at 12months. Combined approaches provided greater clinical efficacy than TLIF or PLIF for lumbar (p<0.0001) and radicular pain (p<0.05), ODI (p<0.0001) and SF12 PCS (p<0.01). At 12months, there was no clinical difference between the ALIF-PPF and ALIF-PLF subgroups. However, patents with interbody non-union (Lenke 3 or 4) had lower SF12 PCS scores (p<0.004) and VAS-L ratings (p<0.001) than Lenke 1-2 patients. ConclusionLow-grade ISPL treated by circumferential arthrodesis and interbody graft showed 85.3% consolidation at 2years, with equivalent outcomes between anterior and posterior techniques. Successful fusion was associated with better clinical results. Level of evidenceIV.