Abstract
Background
Both posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are accepted surgical techniques for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). However, it is still unclear one technique offers distinct advantages over the other.
Objective
A retrospective study was performed to compare perioperative complications and functional outcomes of patients undergoing TLIF versus PLIF for DLS.
Methods
A total of 226 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for treatment of DLS at three institutions were evaluated from January 2012 to December 2014. In this series, 125 patients underwent PLIF and 101 received TLIF. The operative time, blood loss, allogeneic blood transfusion rate and perioperative complications (including re-operative rate, nerve root injury, dural tear, wound infection) were compared between the two groups. Pain (VAS) and functional outcomes of patients (Kirkaldy-Willis criteria) were quantified before surgery and 1 week after surgery.
Results
Patients involved in the two groups had similar baseline demographic, clinical and radiographic characteristics. The PLIF group was associated with a higher incidence of post-operative iatrogenic nerve root dysfunction [12 cases (9.6 %) versus 2 cases (1.9 %), P = 0.018] and dural tears [15 cases (12 %) versus 4 cases (3.9 %), P = 0.030]. The re-operation rate was significantly higher in patients undergoing PLIF [13 cases (10.4 %) versus 2 cases (1.9 %), P = 0.011]. In addition, intra-operative blood loss, operative times, and allogeneic blood transfusion rates were higher in the PLIF group when compared to the TLIF group (P < 0.05). The wound infection rate of the PLIF group was similar to that of the TLIF group (7.2 versus 5.0 %, P = 0.486). VAS scores were decreased from 7.08 ± 1.13 to 2.84 ± 0.89 in the PLIF group, and from 7.18 ± 1.09 to 2.84 ± 0.91 in the TLIF group, respectively (P = 0.32). 85.6 % of patients in the TLIF group had good or excellent functional outcomes within the first post-operative week compared to 83.2 % in the PLIF group (P = 0.64).
Conclusion
Both PLIF and TLIF were equally beneficial in improving short-term functional outcomes for patients with DLS. However, PLIFs were associated with statistically significant higher incidences of nerve root injury, dural tears, allogeneic blood transfusion, increased intra-operative times, blood loss and re-operations. Therefore, caution should be exercised when considering PLIFs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kanayama M, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Oha F, Ishida T, Yamane S (2005) Non-fusion surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis using artificial ligament stabilization: surgical indication and clinical results. Spine 30:588–592
Starkweather A (2006) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: an old concept with new techniques. J Neurosci Nurs 38(1):13–20
Talia AJ, Wong ML, Lau HC, Kaye AH (2015) Comparison of the different surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci 22(2):243–251
DiPaola CP, Molinari RW (2008) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16(3):130–139
Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral, transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:88–99
Witoon N, Tangviriyapaiboon T (2014) Clinical and radiological outcomes of segmental spinal fusion in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with spinous process tricortical autograft. Asian Spine J 8(2):170–176
Høy K, Bünger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Li H, Andersen T (2013) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22(9):2022–2029
Liu Z, Liu J, Tan Y, He L, Long X, Yang D, Huang S, Shu Y (2014) A comparative study between local bone graft with a cage and with no cage in single posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a multicenter study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(8):1051–1057
Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Paine KW, Cauchoix J, McIvor G (1974) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 99:30–50
Stewart TD (1935) Spondylolisthesis without separate neural arch (pseudospondylolisthesis of Junghanns). J Bone Joint Surg Am 17:640–648
Kalichman L, Hunter DJ (2008) Diagnosis and conservative management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17(3):327–335
Faldini C, Pagkrati S, Acri F, Miscione MT, Francesconi D, Giannini S (2007) Surgical treatment of symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis by decompression and instrumented fusion. J Orthop Traumatol 8(3):128–133
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Blood EA, Tosteson AN et al (2009) Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(6):1295–1304
Fischgrund JS (2004) The argument for instrumented decompressive posterolateral fusion for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine 29(2):173–174
Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2005) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: review of current trends and controversies. Spine 30(6):S71–S81
Eismont FJ, Norton RP, Hirsch BP (2014) Surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 22(4):203–213
Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. J Neurosurg 10:154–168
Wang SJ, Han YC, Liu XM, Ma B, Zhao WD, Wu DS et al (2014) Fusion techniques for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(6):777–784
Yan DL, Pei FX, Li J, Soo CL (2008) Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17(10):1311–1316
Hosono N, Namekata M, Makino T, Miwa T, Kaito T, Kaneko N et al (2008) Perioperative complications of primary posterior lumbar interbody fusion for nonisthmic spondylolisthesis: analysis of risk factors. J Neurosurg Spine 9(5):403–407
Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 26:567–571
Sakeb N, Ahsan K (2013) Comparison of the early results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic lumbar instability. Indian J Orthop 47(3):255–263
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Department of Science and Technology Program Funds of Jiangxi Province, P. R. China (No. 20123BBG70245, 20121BBG70037) and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province, P. R. China (No. 20142BAB215046).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No benefits in any form have been or will be received from any commercial party related directly and indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.
Additional information
J. Liu and H. Deng contributed equally to this study and share the first authorship.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, J., Deng, H., Long, X. et al. A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 25, 1575–1580 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4086-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4086-8