Is stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion superior to instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-level, low-grade, lumbar spondylolisthesis?

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare surgical trauma and radiographic and clinical outcomes of stand-alone and instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the treatment of single-level low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsNinety-five patients with single-level low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis, who underwent stand-alone LLIF (stand-alone group, [n = 54]) or LLIF plus percutaneous posterior fixation (instrumented group, [n = 41]) were enrolled in this study. Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatine kinase (CK) levels, the length of postoperative bed rest time, and hospital stay were compared between the 2 groups. Disc height, the percent of slip, segment lordosis, lumbar lordosis, the visual analog scale score, the Oswestry Disability Index and complications were also compared. ResultsOperative and bed rest time were shorter, intraoperative blood loss was less, and postoperative CRP and CK levels were lower in the stand-alone group. During follow-up, 6 patients in stand-alone group underwent posterior fixation due to cage subsidence. Although satisfactory radiographic results were achieved in both groups, the maintenance of increased disc heights and segment lordosis was inferior in the stand-alone group at the final follow-up. Greater improvement in postoperative VAS scores and ODI were observed in the stand-alone group, although the rates of cage subsidence and revision were higher. ConclusionStand-alone LLIF was superior to instrumented LLIF in terms of tissue trauma for the treatment of single-level low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, stand-alone LLIF was inferior in the maintenance of disc height and segment lordosis, and the occurrence of cage subsidence and revision.