Skip to main content

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in Grade I/II spondylolisthesis

Abstract

Background

Spondylolisthesis refers to slippage of one vertebra over the other, which may be caused by a variety of reasons such as degenerative, trauma, and isthmic. Surgical management forms the mainstay of treatment to prevent further slip and worsening. However, there is no consensus regarding the best surgical option to treat these patients. This study compares TLIF and instrumented PLF in patients with Grade I and II spondylolisthesis and analysis the outcome with respect to functional outcome, pain, fusion rate, adequacy of medial facetectomy for decompression, and complications.

Materials and Methods

Forty patients operated for spondylolisthesis by instrumented posterolateral or transforaminal fusion between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2012 were included in this retrospective study. They were followed up for 3 years. Twenty one cases were of instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) and 19 cases were of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The patients were asked to fill up the Oswestry disability index (ODI), Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), and low back pain rating scale (LBPRS) preoperatively, at 1-month postoperatively, and at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. Radiological parameters were assessed using radiographs.

Results

No significant differences were found in DPQ, LBPRS, or ODI scores preoperative, 1-month postoperative, and at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months followup. No significant difference was found between the two groups in blood loss. The only significant difference between the two groups was in the operative time, in which the instrumented PLF group had a mean of 50 min lesser than the TLIF group (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

TLIF and instrumented PLF are equally efficacious options in the treatment of Grade I and II spondylolisthesis, except lytic type.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Online Etymology Directory. Available from: http://www.etymonline.com/. [Last retrieved on 2015 Mar 28].

  2. Wiltse Leon L, Newman PH, Macnab I. Classification of spondyloisis and spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976;117:23–9.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Morizono Y, Masuda A, Demirtas AM. Natural history of degenerative spondylolisthesi. Pathogenesis and natural course of the slippage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990;15:1204–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: Updated Cochrane Revie. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2312–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A; Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Chronic low back pain and fusion: A comparison of three surgical techniques: A prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study grou. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:1131–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Möller H, Hedlund R. Instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis — A prospective randomized study: Part . Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:1716–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, Hansen ES, Fruensgaard S, Bünger CE. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studie. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: A prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:2813–22.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lawlis GF, Cuencas R, Selby D, McCoy CE. The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnair. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989;14:511–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Manniche C, Asmussen K, Lauritsen B, Vinterberg H, Kreiner S, Jordan A. Low back pain rating scale: Validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain. Pain 1994;57:317–26.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability inde. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2940–52.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T, Tamura Y, Chiba M, Sato K. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1999;70:329–34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Rovsing H, Monrad H, Gebuhr P. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: An epidemiological perspective: The Copenhagen Osteoarthritis Stud. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:120–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Charan J, Biswas T. How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research? Indian J Psychol Med 2013;35:121–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brantigan JW, Neidre A, Toohey JS. The Lumbar I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the variable screw placement system: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Spine J 2004;4:681–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Eiskjaer SP, Høy K, Helmig P, Neumann P, et al. Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: A prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patient. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:2674–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McAfee PC, DeVine JG, Chaput CD, Prybis BG, Fedder IL, Cunningham BW, et al. The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylolisthesis: Analysis of 120 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30 6 Suppl: S60–5.

  17. Zdeblick TA, Phillips FM. Interbody cage device. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28 15 Suppl: S2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Audat Z, Moutasem O, Yousef K, Mohammad B. Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. Singapore Med J 2012;53:183–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Høy K, Bünger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Li H, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: A randomized clinical trial with 2-year followup. Eur Spine J 2013;22:2022–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brodsky AE, Kovalsky ES, Khalil MA. Correlation of radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical exploratio. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991;16 6 Suppl: S261–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niranjanan Raghavn Muralidharagopalan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pooswamy, S., Muralidharagopalan, N.R. & Subbaiah, S. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in Grade I/II spondylolisthesis. IJOO 51, 131–138 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.201703

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.201703

Key words

  • Instrumented posterolateral fusion
  • spondylolisthesis
  • transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Mesh terms

  • Spinal fusion
  • spondylolisthesis
  • degenerative diseases
  • lumbar vertebrae