Skip to main content
Log in

A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Starkweather A (2006) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: an old concept with new techniques. J Neurosci Nurs 38(1):13–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. DiPaola CP, Molinari RW (2008) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16(3):130–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral, transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:88–99

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Paine KW, Cauchoix J, McIvor G (1974) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 99:30–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stewart TD (1935) Spondylolisthesis without separate neural arch (pseudospondylolisthesis of Junghanns). J Bone Joint Surg Am 17:640–648

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kalichman L, Hunter DJ (2008) Diagnosis and conservative management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17(3):327–335

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischgrund JS (2004) The argument for instrumented decompressive posterolateral fusion for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine 29(2):173–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2005) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: review of current trends and controversies. Spine 30(6):S71–S81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eismont FJ, Norton RP, Hirsch BP (2014) Surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 22(4):203–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. J Neurosurg 10:154–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Risheng Xu or Zhili Liu.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4086-8

Keywords

Navigation