Minimal Access Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Spondylolisthesis

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 308-309
Author(s):  
R. Riesenburger
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimal Access

Long-term Follow-up of Minimal-Access and Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spondylolisthesis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas K. Cheung ◽  
Richard D. Ferch ◽  
Ali Ghahreman ◽  
Nikolai Bogduk
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimal Access ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Long Term Outcome

Abstract BACKGROUND: Although posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is regarded as an effective treatment for spondylolisthesis, few studies have reported comprehensive, long-term outcome data, and none has investigated the incidence of deterioration of outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the success rates and long-term stability of outcomes of open PLIF and minimal-access PLIF in the treatment of radicular pain and back pain in patients with spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Forty-three patients were followed for a minimum of 3 years. They completed a Short-Form Health Survey and visual analog scores for back pain and leg pain and underwent lumbar spine radiography. Outcomes were compared with baseline data and 12-month data. RESULTS: Surgery succeeded in reducing listhesis and increasing disc height, but had little effect on lumbar lordosis or the angulation of the segment treated. At 12 months after surgery, listhesis was reduced, disc height was increased, leg pain was reduced or eliminated, and physical functioning restored. Back pain was less often relieved. These outcomes were largely maintained over the ensuing 2 years. Only 5% to 10% of patients reported deterioration in their relief of pain. Depending on the definition adopted for success, the long-term success rate of PLIF may be as high as 70%. CONCLUSION: For the relief of leg pain, the success rates of open PLIF (70%) and minimal-access PLIF (67%) for spondylolisthesis are high and durable in the long-term. PLIF is less often successful in relieving back pain, but the outcomes are maintained. The outcomes of open PLIF and minimal-access PLIF were statistically indistinguishable.

Minimal Access Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Spondylolisthesis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ghahreman ◽  
Richard D. Ferch ◽  
Prashanth J. Rao ◽  
Nikolai Bogduk
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimal Access ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Abstract OBJECTIVE To compare the safety and effectiveness of minimal access posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MAPLIF) with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (OPLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis and radicular pain. METHODS A prospective study was performed of 47 patients with radicular pain resulting from lumbar spondylolisthesis with a slip of less than 50% who underwent either MAPLIF (n = 23) or OPLIF (n = 24). At 12 months after treatment, clinical outcomes were measured using the Short-Form Health Survey 36 and the visual analog score for both leg pain and back pain, and the degree of reduction of spondylolisthesis, restoration of disc height, and presence of fusion were assessed. RESULTS Both groups were similar in demographic and baseline clinical features. Both exhibited statistically and clinically significant improvements in back pain (OPLIF, 64%; MAPLIF, 78%), and leg pain (88% for both groups). This was corroborated by improvements in social and physical functioning, which were similar for both groups. The reduction of spondylolisthesis and fusion rates were also similar between the 2 groups. MAPLIF patients commenced mobilization sooner, achieved independent mobilization earlier, and had a shorter hospital stay (4 days versus 7 days). CONCLUSION MAPLIF and OPLIF both reduce leg and back pain and restore function to a similar extent. MAPLIF is as effective as OPLIF in reducing the slip in patients with spondylolisthesis of less than 50%. MAPLIF promotes faster recovery and shortens hospital stay.

scholarly journals Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110164
Author(s):  
Elsayed Said ◽  
Mohamed E. Abdel-Wanis ◽  
Mohamed Ameen ◽  
Ali A. Sayed ◽  
Khaled H. Mosallam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: Arthrodesis has been a valid treatment option for spinal diseases, including spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterolateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion are amongst the most used fusion techniques. Previous reports comparing both methods have been contradictory. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish substantial evidence on which fusion method would achieve better outcomes. Methods: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes of interest between posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We extracted data on clinical outcome, complication rate, revision rate, fusion rate, operation time, and blood loss. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We retrieved 8 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, with a total of 616 patients (308 PLF, 308 PLIF). The results of our analysis revealed that patients who underwent PLIF had significantly higher fusion rates. No statistically significant difference was identified in terms of clinical outcomes, complication rates, revision rates, operation time or blood loss. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comparison between PLF and PLIF based on RCTs. Although PLIF had higher fusion rates, both fusion methods achieve similar clinical outcomes with equal complication rate, revision rate, operation time and blood loss at 1-year minimum follow-up.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document