Abstract
Background: The optimal surgical technique for lumbar spondylolithesis remains debated. Although posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) theoretically offers more advantages than posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF), the evidence remains inconclusive. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of PLIF versus PLF in patients with lumbar spondylolithesis. Patients and Methods: We enrolled 38 patients with lumbar spondylolithesis (degenerative and isthmic) who underwent PLIF (N = 19) or PLF (N = 19). We collected operative data and performed follow-up for 12 months after the surgery. The collected data were analyzed using the SPSS software to detected significant differences between both groups. Results: The PLF and PLIF groups exhibited similar pre-operative characteristics between both groups in terms of age (p = 0.57), sex (p = 0.73), clinical presentation (p = 1), required levels of fixation (p = 1), pre-operative VAS score (p = 0.43) or muscle weakness (p = 1). However, the PLIF group had significantly more blood loss and longer operative time than the PLF group. Moreover, both groups had similar levels of postoperative pain (up to six months after surgery), and post-operative complications. The rates of arthrodesis were higher in PLIF group than PLF group within six months while no significant difference within 12 months of follow-up. Conclusion: In our comparative study, we achieved comparison between pedicle screw fixation with posterolateral fusion alone (PLF) in compare with pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Results indicate better results of fusion rate in PLIF as regards arthrodesis with slightly more rate of complication than PLF. So we recommend PLIF in cases of lumbar spondylolithesis than PLF.
Highlights
Spondylolithesis is defined as sagittal subluxation of the vertebral body over the other, and is characterized by failure of the three-column support [1]
The rates of arthrodesis were higher in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) group than posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) group within six months while no significant difference within 12 months of follow-up
Thirty-eight patients diagnosed with lumbar spondylolithesis who were undergoing PLIF and PLF
Summary
Spondylolithesis is defined as sagittal subluxation of the vertebral body over the other, and is characterized by failure of the three-column support [1]. The surgical approach used to be dominant is posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF); this technique depends mainly on posterior vertebral fixation with lack of anterior support and may interfere with spinal biomechanics [3]. Another approach (posterior lumbar interbody fusion: PLIF) has been argued to be superior to the traditional PLF approach [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The PLIF group had significantly more blood loss and longer operative time than the PLF group Both groups had similar levels of postoperative pain (up to six months after surgery), and post-operative complications. We recommend PLIF in cases of lumbar spondylolithesis than PLF
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
