Volume 1, Issue 2 (12-2015)                   Iran J Neurosurg 2015, 1(2): 22-26 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Alijani B, Emamhadi M, Behzadnia H, Azar M, Kazemnejad-Leili E, Yousefzadeh-Chabok S, et al . Curb the Pain of Spondylolisthesis; Comparing Posterolateral Fusion with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Iran J Neurosurg. 2015; 1 (2) :22-26
URL: http://irjns.org/article-1-11-en.html
Abstract:   (2005 Views)

Background & Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the pain of patients with spondylolisthesis who had undergone either of the surgery techniques: posterolateral fusion (PLF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods & Materials/Patients: In a prospective observational study, 102 surgical candidates with low grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis were enrolled from 2012 to 2014. The observed patients were into two groups: PLF and PLIF. Assessing of pain has been done by a questionnaire using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores. The questionnaire was completed by all patients before surgery, the day after surgery, after six months and after one year. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in terms of age and sex distribution, type of spondylolisthesis and pre-operation pain between groups (p>0.05). Comparison of the mean VAS scores of two groups over the whole study period showed a significant statistical difference (p-value<0.05), although comparison of VAS at three points in time showed a mixed result. VAS scores showed no significant differences between two groups before surgery, the day after surgery and one year after surgery (p>0.05), but the difference of mean VAS scores between groups 6 months after surgery was statistically significant (p<0.05). Analyzing the course of VAS scores over the study period showed a descending pattern for either of the groups (p<0.0001). Conclusion: Both surgical fusion techniques (PLF & PLIF) showed to be effective in treating low grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis, but PLIF was related to better outcome with respect to pain control.

Full Text [PDF 504 kb]   (485 Downloads) |   |   Full Text (HTML)  (327 Views)  
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Gamma Knife Radiosurgery
* Corresponding Author Address: *Corresponding Author Address: Poursina Hospital, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Guilan, Iran. Tel: +981333338373, Fax: +981333338373. E-mail:Aliaram79@gmail.com

1. Inamdar D, Alagappan M, Shyam L, Devadoss S, Devadoss A. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus intertransverse fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery. 2006;14(1).
2. Winn H. Textbook of Neurological Surgery. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2011.
3. Ye Y-P, Xu H, Chen D. Comparison between posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion with transpedicular screw fixation for isthmic spondylolithesis: a meta-analysis. Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery. 2013;133(12):1649-55. [DOI:10.1007/s00402-013-1868-5] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a prospective controlled study in the Han nationality. International orthopaedics. 2009;33(4):1043-7. [DOI:10.1007/s00264-008-0588-x] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Dai L, Jia L, Yuan W, Ni B, Zhu H. Direct repair of defect in lumbar spondylolysis and mild isthmic spondylolisthesis by bone grafting, with or without facet joint fusion. European Spine Journal. 2001;10(1):78-83. [DOI:10.1007/s005860000205] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Boos N, Webb J. Pedicle screw fixation in spinal disorders: a European view. European Spine Journal. 1997;6(1):2-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00307823 [DOI:10.1007/BF01676569] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Boos N, Marchesi D, Zuber K, Aebi M. Treatment of Severe Spondylolisthesis by Reduction and Pedicular Fixation: A 4-6-Year Follow-Up Study. Spine. 1993;18(12):1655-61. [DOI:10.1097/00007632-199309000-00014] [PMID]
8. Dickman CA, Fessler RG, MacMillan M, Haid RW. Transpedicular screw-rod fixation of the lumbar spine: operative technique and outcome in 104 cases. Journal of neurosurgery. 1992;77(6):860-70. [DOI:10.3171/jns.1992.77.6.0860] [PMID]
9. La Rosa G, Conti A, Cacciola F, Cardali S, La Torre D, Gambadauro NM, et al. Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion? Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2003;99(2):143-50. [DOI:10.3171/spi.2003.99.2.0143]
10. Thalgott JS, Aebi M. Manual of internal fixation of the spine: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1996.
11. Yuan HA, Garfin SR, Dickman CA, Mardjetko SM. A Historical Cohort Study of Pedicle Screw Fixation in Thoracic, Lumbar, and Sacral Spinal Fusion. Spine. 1994;19(20):2279S-96S. [DOI:10.1097/00007632-199410151-00005] [PMID]
12. Habib H. Posterolateral fusion versus posterior interbody fusion in adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Menoufia Medical Journal. 2014;27(1):191. [DOI:10.4103/1110-2098.132800]
13. Audat Z, Moutasem O, Yousef K, Mohammad B. Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. Singapore medical journal. 2012;53(3):183-7. [PMID]
14. Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion: I. Indications, operative technique, after care. Journal of neurosurgery. 1953;10(2):154-68. [DOI:10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154] [PMID]
15. Lin PM. A technical modification of Cloward's posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 1977;1(2):118-24. https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-197709000-00006 [DOI:10.1097/00006123-197709000-00006] [PMID]
16. Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Ikeda Y, Nakajima F, Ohtori S, Nakagawa K, et al. A prospective randomized controlled study comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques for degenerative spondylolisthesis: unilateral pedicle screw and 1 cage versus bilateral pedicle screws and 2 cages: clinical article. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2012;17(2):153-9. [DOI:10.3171/2012.5.SPINE111044] [PMID]
17. Ekman P, Möller H, Tullberg T, Neumann P, Hedlund R. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2007;32(20):2178-83. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b1bd8] [PMID]
18. Xiuxin H, Yue Z, Cui C, Yajun W. A meta-analysis of circumferential fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. Spine. 2009;34(17):E618-E25. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a9beab] [PMID]
19. Kim K-T, Lee S-H, Lee Y-H, Bae S-C, Suk K-S. Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spine. 2006;31(12):1351-7. [DOI:10.1097/01.brs.0000218635.14571.55] [PMID]
20. Zhou Z-J, Zhao F-D, Fang X-Q, Zhao X, Fan S-W. Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine: A review. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2011;15(3):295-310. [DOI:10.3171/2011.4.SPINE10330] [PMID]
21. Bròdano GB, Lolli F, Martikos K, Gasbarrini A, Bandiera S, Greggi T, et al. Fueling the debate: Are outcomes better after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or after posterolateral fusion (PLF) in adult patients with low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis? Evidence-based spine-care journal. 2010;1(1):29 [DOI:10.1055/s-0028-1100890] [PMID] [PMCID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

© 2019 All Rights Reserved | Iranian Journal of Neurosurgery

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb