Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion with instrumentation in the treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis: midterm clinical outcomes

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 488-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmet Murat Müslüman ◽  
Adem Yılmaz ◽  
Tufan Cansever ◽  
Halit Çavuşoğlu ◽  
İbrahim Çolak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Isthmic Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transpedicular Instrumentation ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Object The purpose of this study was to compare the methods of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in cases of isthmic Grades 1 and 2 lumbar spondylolisthesis, and to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the procedures. Methods Operations were performed in 50 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis in the authors' clinics between 2001 and 2007. Indications for surgery were low-back pain with or without sciatica and neurogenic claudication that had not improved after at least 6 months of conservative treatment. The study included 33 female and 17 male patients, with mean ages of 50.6 years in the PLIF group and 47.3 years in the PLF group. These patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: decompression, posterior transpedicular instrumentation, and PLF (Group 1; 25 patients) and decompression, posterior transpedicular instrumentation, and PLIF (Group 2; 25 patients). In the PLIF group, titanium cages were used, and autograft material was obtained from the decompression. In the PLF group, bone fragments collected from the iliac crest were used as autografts. A minimum 18-month follow-up was available in all patients. For clinical evaluation, a visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey were used. Improvements in pre- and postoperative spondylolisthesis, segmental angles, fusion ratios, and postoperative complications were evaluated radiologically. Results The average follow-up period was 3.3 years. Based on the etiologies, isthmic spondylolisthesis was detected in all patients. The spondylolisthesis levels in the patients who underwent PLIF were located at L3–4 (5 patients, 20%); L4–5 (14, 56%); and L5–S1 (6, 24%), whereas the levels in the ones treated with PLF were located at L3–4 (4 patients, 16%); L4–5 (13, 52%); and L5–S1 (8, 32%). In the clinical evaluations, good or excellent results were obtained in 22 (88%) cases in the PLIF group and 19 (76%) cases in the PLF group. Fusion ratios were 100% in the PLIF group and 84% in the PLF group. Both lumbar lordosis and the segmental angle showed greater improvement in the PLIF group. There was no difference in the complication rates for each group. Conclusions Based on early clinical outcomes and the fusion ratios of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis, the authors found PLIF to be superior to PLF.

scholarly journals Functional and radiological analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in spondylolisthesis

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
Ramanujam Muthu Manickam ◽  
Ganesan G. Ram ◽  
S. Sundar ◽  
A. Prakash
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Surgical Intervention ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Isthmic Spondylolisthesis ◽  
The Mean

<p class="abstract"><strong><span lang="EN-US">Background:</span></strong>Spondylolisthesis is present in 5% of the adult population with clinical evidence of low back pain. These patients are treated initially by conservative measures, failing of which surgical intervention is mandatory. Majority of patients with varying degree of slip and disability ultimately require surgical intervention. In this study we are trying to analyse the functional outcome following posterior lumbar interbody fusion in spondylolisthesis.</p><p class="abstract"><strong><span lang="EN-US">Methods:</span></strong><span lang="EN-US"> Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using pedicle screw and rods with cage was performed on 25 patients. 6 months follow-up was completed in 25 patients who were then reviewed at regular intervals. Out of the 25 patients, 17(68%) were females and 8(32%) were males. The mean age of the patients was 40.64 years. Out of 25 patients, 14 patients had listhesis at L4 – L5 level and another 11 at L5 – S1 level. 21(84%) were Isthmic variant and 4 (16%) were Degenerative spondylolisthesis.<strong></strong></span></p><p class="abstract"><strong><span lang="EN-US">Results:</span></strong>The mean follow up period in this study of 25 patients is 19 months. Out of 25 patients, there was mean improvement of 18.96 in the Oswestry scoring index. The Visual analogue scale score showed a mean improvement of 6.48. Radiologically, the percentage of slip was decreased by a mean of 8.40%. One patient had a cage extrusion with no neurological deficit.</p><p class="abstract"><strong><span lang="EN-US">Conclusions:</span></strong>The pedicle screw with rod and cage system is easy to use and provides the anatomic restoration of the isthmus in isthmic spondylolisthesis or restoring the stability after laminectomy/discectomy in degenerative spondylolisthesis. From our study, we strongly believe that this technique is very useful in low grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis.</p>

Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level: clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 198-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Taneichi ◽  
Kota Suda ◽  
Tomomichi Kajino ◽  
Akira Matsumura ◽  
Hiroshi Moridaira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column Support ◽  
The Mean

Object There are no published reports of unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in which two Brantigan I/F cages were placed per level through a single portal to achieve bilateral anterior-column support. The authors describe such a surgical technique and evaluate the clinical outcomes of this procedure. Methods Data obtained in 86 (93.5%) of the first 92 consecutive patients who underwent the procedure were retrospectively reviewed; the minimum follow-up duration was 2 years. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring system. Disc height, disc angle, cage positioning in the axial plane, and fusion status were radiographically evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 33.8 months. The mean improvement in the JOA score was 77.2%. Fusion was successful in 93% of the cases. According to the Farfan method, the mean anterior and posterior disc heights increased from 20.2 and 16.9% preoperatively to 35.9 and 22.7% at follow up, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean disc angle increased from 4.8° preoperatively to 7.5° at last follow-up examination (p < 0.01). Two cages were correctly placed to achieve bilateral anterior-column support in greater than 85% of the cases. The following complications occurred: hardware migration in two patients and deep infection cured by intravenous antibiotic therapy in one patient. Conclusions Unilateral TLIF involving the placement of two Brantigan cages per level led to good clinical results. Two Brantigan cages were adequately placed via a single portal, and reliable bilateral anterior-column support was achieved. Although the less invasive unilateral approach was used, the outcomes were as good as those in many reported series of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in which the Brantigan cages were placed via the bilateral approach.

Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion?

2003 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni La Rosa ◽  
Alfredo Conti ◽  
Fabio Cacciola ◽  
Salvatore Cardali ◽  
Domenico La Torre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Isthmic Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fine Print

Object. Posterolateral fusion involving instrumentation-assisted segmental fixation represents a valid procedure in the treatment of lumbar instability. In cases of anterior column failure, such as in isthmic spondylolisthesis, supplemental posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) may improve the fusion rate and endurance of the construct. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion is, however, a more demanding procedure and increases costs and risks of the intervention. The advantages of this technique must, therefore, be weighed against those of a simple posterior lumbar fusion. Methods. Thirty-five consecutive patients underwent pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis. In 18 patients posterior lumbar fusion was performed, and in 17 patients PLIF was added. Clinical, economic, functional, and radiographic data were assessed to determine differences in clinical and functional results and biomechanical properties. At 2-year follow-up examination, the correction of subluxation, disc height, and foraminal area were maintained in the group in which a PLIF procedure was performed, but not in the posterolateral fusion—only group (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, no statistical intergroup differences were demonstrated in terms of neurological improvement (p = 1), economic (p = 0.43), or functional (p = 0.95) outcome, nor in terms of fusion rate (p = 0.49). Conclusions. The authors' findings support the view that an interbody fusion confers superior mechanical strength to the spinal construct; when posterolateral fusion is the sole intervention, progressive loss of the extreme correction can be expected. Such mechanical insufficiency, however, did not influence clinical outcome.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document