Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a prospective controlled study in the Han nationality

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this prospective study, our aim was to compare the clinical outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in spondylolisthesis. A total of 138 patients with spondylolisthesis were randomly assigned to two groups: those operated on with pedicle screw fixation and posterior lumbar interbody fusion by autografting (PLIF), and those operated on with pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion by autografting (PLF). The patients were followed-up for four years. Clinical evaluation was carried out using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and pain index (VAS). Radiography was performed preoperatively and postoperatively to assess the fusion. Both surgical procedures were effective, but the PLF group showed more complications related to hardware biomechanics. There was no significant statistical difference in clinical and functional outcome in the two groups. The PLIF group presented a better fusion rate than the PLF group.

Résumé

Le but de cette étude prospective est de comparer les résultats et le devenir clinique de l'arthrodèse intercorporéale (PLIF) et des arthrodèses postérolatérales (PLF) dans le spondylolisthésis. 138 patients présentant un spondylolisthesis ont été randomisés en deux groupes: les opéré par fixation avec vis pédiculaires et fusion intercorporéale par voie postérieure et autogreffe (PLIF), et les a été opéré toujours par fixation pédiculaire mais avec greffes postéro-latérales (toujours par autogreffes) (PLF). Les patients ont été suivis pendant 4 ans. L'évaluation clinique a été réalisée à l'aide de l'index d'Oswestry (ODI) et la douleur à l'aide de l'échelle visuelle analogique. Les radiographies ont été réalisées en pré et post-opératoire de façon à évaluer la fusion. Ces deux procédés sont efficaces néanmoins, pour le groupe PLF, on déplore plus de complications relatives au matériel. Il n'y a pas de différences significatives sur le devenir clinique et fonctionnel dans les deux groupes, le groupe PLIF présentant un meilleur taux de fusion comparé au groupe PLF.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Brantigan JW, Neidre A (2003) Achievement of normal sagittal plane alignment using a wedged carbon fiber reinforced polymer fusion cage in treatment of spodylolisthesis. Spine 22:210–220

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brantigan JW, Steffee DA, Lewis ML et al (2000) Lumbar interbody fusion using the Bratigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system. Spine 25:1437–1446

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Crawford S, Çagli S, Sontag VKH (2001) Biomechanics of grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: part 1. In vitro model. J Neurosurg 94(1):45–50

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dantas FL, Prandini MN, Ferreira MA (2007) Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in adult spondylolisthesis. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 65:764–770

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dijk MV, Smit TH, Sugihara S et al (2002) The effect of cage stiffness on the rate of lumbar interbody fusion: an in vivo model using poly (l-lactic acid) and titanium cage. Spine 27:682–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dai LY, Jia LS, Yuan W et al (2001) Direct repair of defect in lumbar spondylolysis and mild isthmic spondylolisthesis by bone grafting, with or without joint fusion. Eur Spine J 10:78–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry disability index. Spine 25:2940–2952

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN (2000) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudoarthrosis. Presented at the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons annual meeting, Orlando, FL, 15–19 March

  9. Kim KT, Lee SH, Lee YH et al (2006) Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spina 31:1351–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Madan S, Boeree NR (2002) Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusions versus posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis. Spine 27:1536–1542

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Butt MF, Dhar SA (2007) In situ instrumented posterolateral fusion without decompression in symptomatic low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. Int Orthop. DOI 10.1007/s00264-007-0367-0

  12. Suk S, Lee CK, Kim W, Lee J, Cho K (1997) Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterior fusion after decompression in spondillytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:210–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kho VK-S, Chen W-C (2008) Posterolateral fusion using laminectomy bone chips in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Int Orthop 32:1115–1119

    Google Scholar 

  14. William LTC, Brett CPT, Aman CPT et al (2001) Lumbar sagittal contour after posterior interbody fusion: treaded devices alone versus vertical cages plus posterior instrumentation. Spine 26:534–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 32:537–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic and Trauma Department, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, No.107 Wenhua Xi Road, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, People’s Republic of China

    Lei Cheng, Lin Nie & Li Zhang

Authors
  1. Lei Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lin Nie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Li Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lei Cheng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cheng, L., Nie, L. & Zhang, L. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a prospective controlled study in the Han nationality. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 33, 1043–1047 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0588-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0588-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation