Effect of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Maintaining the Reduction in Isthmic Spondylolisthesis.
10.4184/jkss.2005.12.4.331
- Author:
Ye Soo PARK
1
;
Woo Jin CHO
;
Suk Hwan KIM
;
Jae Lim CHO
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hanyang University College of Medicine. jlcho@hanyang.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Isthmic spondylolisthesis;
Posterior interbody fusion;
Maintenance of reduction
- MeSH:
Humans;
Retrospective Studies;
Spondylolisthesis*
- From:Journal of Korean Society of Spine Surgery
2005;12(4):331-337
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective study on the effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion for maintaining the reduction in isthmic spondylolisthesis patients. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the efficacy of performing posterior lumbar interbody fusion for maintaining the reduction in isthmic spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW: There have been many reports regarding the surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis. Although there are many reports that the clinical results have nothing to do with the reduction, many surgeons have tried to maintain the reduction. However, the question about what kind of fusion modality is the most effective for maintaining the reduction is still controversial. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Between August 2002 and January 2004, 24 patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis were operated on. 14 underwent posterolateral fusion alone (group A) and 10 underwent additional posterior interbody fusion (group B). These two groups were compared in terms of the clinical results, the radiological changes and fusion rates. RESULTS: the reduction rate were 11.81% and 7.32% in the PLF and PLF+PLIF groups, respectively (p>0.05). The reduction losses were 0.19% and 0.35% in the PLF and PLF+PLIF groups, respectively (p>0.05). The changes after fusion were 0.11% and 0.10% in the PLF and PLF+PLIF groups, respectively (p>0.05). There was no case of nonunion. The satisfaction rates were 86% and 83% in the PLF and PLF+PLIF groups, respectively (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the addition of posterior interbody fusion showed no benefit in maintaining correction. If solid fusion can be obtained, then posterolateral fusion seems to be sufficient enough to maintain correction in isthmic spondylolisthesis. The authors think that further studies are mandatory because of the small number subjects in our study.
