A Comparative Study of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.
- Author:
Abhijit Y PAWAR
1
;
Alexander P HUGHES
;
Andrew A SAMA
;
Federico P GIRARDI
;
Darren R LEBL
;
Frank P CAMMISA
Author Information
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords: Interbody fusion; Degenerative spondylolisthesis; Segmental spinal instrumentation
- MeSH: Animals; Decompression; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Incidence; Lordosis; Retrospective Studies; Spine; Spondylolisthesis*
- From:Asian Spine Journal 2015;9(5):668-674
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: Level 4 retrospective review. PURPOSE: To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior segmental spinal instrumentation (SSI) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Both PLIF and LLIF have been performed for degenerative spondylolisthesis with good results, but no study has directly compared these two techniques so far. METHODS: The electronic medical and radiographic records of 78 matched patients were analyzed. In one group, 39 patients underwent PLIF with SSI at 41 levels (L3-4/L4-5), while in the other group, 39 patients underwent the LLIF procedure at 48 levels (L3-4/L4-5). Radiological outcomes such as restoration of disc height and neuroforaminal height, segmental lumbar lordosis, total lumbar lordosis, incidence of endplate fracture, and subsidence were measured. Perioperative parameters were also recorded in each group. Clinical outcome in both groups was assessed by the short form-12, Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale scores. The average follow-up period was 16.1 months in the LLIF group and 21 months in the PLIF group. RESULTS: The restoration of disc height, foraminal height, and segmental lumbar lordosis was significantly better in the LLIF group (p<0.001). The duration of the operation was similar in both groups, but the average blood loss was significantly lower in the LLIF group (p<0.001). However, clinical outcome scores were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Safe, effective interbody fusion can be achieved at multiple levels with neuromonitoring by the lateral approach. LLIF is a viable treatment option in patients with new onset symptoms due to degenerative spondylolisthesis who have had previous lumbar spine surgery, and it results in improved sagittal alignment and indirect foraminal decompression.
