Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to analyze outcome, with respect to functional disability, pain, fusion rate, and complications of patients treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in compared to instrumented poserolateral fusion (PLF) alone, in low back pain. Spinal fusion has become a major procedure worldwide. However, conflicting results exist. Theoretical circumferential fusion could improve functional outcome. However, the theoretical advantages lack scientific documentation.

Methods

Prospective randomized clinical study with a 2-year follow-up period. From November 2003 to November 2008 100 patients with severe low back pain and radicular pain were randomly selected for either posterolateral lumbar fusion [titanium TSRH (Medtronic)] or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [titanium TSRH (Medtronic)] with anterior intervertebral support by tantalum cage (Implex/Zimmer). The primary outcome scores were obtained using Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), Oswestry disability Index, SF-36, and low back pain Rating Scale. All measures assessed the endpoints at 2-year follow-up after surgery.

Results

The overall follow-up rate was 94 %. Sex ratio was 40/58. 51 patients had TLIF, 47 PLF. Mean age 49(TLIF)/45(PLF). No statistic difference in outcome between groups could be detected concerning daily activity, work leisure, anxiety/depression or social interest. We found no statistic difference concerning back pain or leg pain. In both the TLIF and the PLF groups the patients had significant improvement in functional outcome, back pain, and leg pain compared to preoperatively. Operation time and blood loss in the TLIF group were significantly higher than in the PLF group (p < 0.001). No statistic difference in fusion rates was detected.

Conclusions

Transforaminal interbody fusion did not improve functional outcome in patients compared to posterolateral fusion. Both groups improved significantly in all categories compared to preoperatively. Operation time and blood loss were significantly higher in the TLIF group.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abdu WA, Lurie JD, Spratt KF et al (2009) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? 4-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine 34(21):2351–2360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brantigan JW, Neidre A, Toohey JS (2004) 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 4(6):681–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Eiskjaer SP et al (2002) Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion With Titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized Clinical study of 146 patients. Spine 27(23):2674–2683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ekman P, Moller H, Tullberg T, Neumann P, Hedlund R (2007) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine 32(20):2178–2183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry disability index. Spine 25(22):2940–2953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN et al (1997) Volvo award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 22(24):2807–2812

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordwall A (2003) Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Eur Spine J 12(2):178–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27(11):1131–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated cochrane review. Spine 30(20):2312–2320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grob D, Bartanusz V, Jeszenszky D et al (2009) A prospective, cohort study comparing translaminar screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(10):1347–1353

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6(2):88–89

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kim KT, Lee SH, Lee YH, Bae SC, Suk KS (2006) Clinical outcomes of three fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spine 31(12):1351–1357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lawlis GF, Cuencas R, Selby D, McCoy CE (1989) The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior. Spine 14(5):511–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Manniche C, Asmussen K, Lauritsen B et al (1994) Low back pain rating scale: validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain. Pain 57(3):317–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. McAfee PC, Devine JG, Chaput CD et al (2005) The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylolisthesis: analysis of 120 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(6 Suppl):S60–S65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moller H, Hedlund R (2000) Instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomized study: part 2. Spine 25(13):1716–1721

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Neumann P, Jalalpour K, Johansson C, Hedlund R (2009) A RCT between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion in DDD and postdiscectomy syndrome. Eur Spine J 18(Supplement 4):S408

    Google Scholar 

  18. Swan J, Hurwitz E, Malek F et al (2006) Surgical treatment for unstable low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults: a prospective controlled study of posterior instrumented fusion compared with combined anterior-posterior fusion. Spine J 6(6):606–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP et al (1997) Volvo award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine 22(24):2813–2822

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R et al (2006) Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 31(25):2875–2880

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Bulsara KR, Thramann JJ (2006) Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(2):92–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ware JE Jr (2000) SF-36 Health Survey Update. Spine 25(24):3130–3139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zdeblick TA, Phillips FM (2003) Interbody cage devices. Spine 28(15):S2–S7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spine Section, Departments of Orthopedics E, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus University, Nørrebrogade 44, Aarhus C, 8000, Denmark

    Kristian Høy, Cody Bünger, Bent Niederman, Peter Helmig, Ebbe Stender Hansen, HaiSheng Li & Thomas Andersen

Authors
  1. Kristian Høy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cody Bünger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bent Niederman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Helmig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ebbe Stender Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. HaiSheng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristian Høy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Høy, K., Bünger, C., Niederman, B. et al. 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, 2022–2029 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2760-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2760-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation