Methods: This study included patients who underwent single-segment PLIF between January 2012 and December 2017. In total, seven patients underwent PLIF with PS (PS-PLIF), nine underwent PLIF with CBT (CBT-PLIF), and 15 underwent PLIF with PPS (PPS-PLIF). Results: No significant differences were noted in terms of operation time or intraoperative bleeding between the PS-PLIF, CBT-PLIF, and PPS-PLIF groups. However, the postoperative drainage volume in the PPS-PLIF group (210.1 mL; range, 50–367 mL) was determined to be significantly lower than that in the PS-PLIF (416.7 mL; range, 260–760 mL; p=0.002) and CBT-PLIF (421.1 mL; range, 180–890 mL; p=0.006) groups. In addition, the total amount of intraoperative bleeding and postoperative drainage was found to be significantly lower in the PPS-PLIF group (362.8 mL; range, 145–637 mL) than in the PS-PLIF (639.6 mL; range, 285–1,000 mL; p=0.01) and CBT-PLIF (606.7 mL; range, 270–950 mL; p=0.005) groups. Conclusions Based on our findings, evaluating surgical invasiveness using only intraoperative bleeding can result in the underestimation of actual surgical invasiveness. Even with single-segment PLIF, the amount of perioperative bleeding can vary depending on the way the posterior instrument is installed.