Background: The optimal surgical technique for lumbar spondylolithesis remains debated. Although posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) theoretically offers more advantages than posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF), t...Background: The optimal surgical technique for lumbar spondylolithesis remains debated. Although posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) theoretically offers more advantages than posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF), the evidence remains inconclusive. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of PLIF versus PLF in patients with lumbar spondylolithesis. Patients and Methods: We enrolled 38 patients with lumbar spondylolithesis (degenerative and isthmic) who underwent PLIF (N = 19) or PLF (N = 19). We collected operative data and performed follow-up for 12 months after the surgery. The collected data were analyzed using the SPSS software to detected significant differences between both groups. Results: The PLF and PLIF groups exhibited similar pre-operative characteristics between both groups in terms of age (p = 0.57), sex (p = 0.73), clinical presentation (p = 1), required levels of fixation (p = 1), pre-operative VAS score (p = 0.43) or muscle weakness (p = 1). However, the PLIF group had significantly more blood loss and longer operative time than the PLF group. Moreover, both groups had similar levels of postoperative pain (up to six months after surgery), and post-operative complications. The rates of arthrodesis were higher in PLIF group than PLF group within six months while no significant difference within 12 months of follow-up. Conclusion: In our comparative study, we achieved comparison between pedicle screw fixation with posterolateral fusion alone (PLF) in compare with pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Results indicate better results of fusion rate in PLIF as regards arthrodesis with slightly more rate of complication than PLF. So we recommend PLIF in cases of lumbar spondylolithesis than PLF.展开更多
Background: The different methods of anterior reconstruction and posterior instrumentation in surgical management of thoracolumbar spine fractures are PLIF, TLIF, lateral extracaviatary and transpedicular techniques w...Background: The different methods of anterior reconstruction and posterior instrumentation in surgical management of thoracolumbar spine fractures are PLIF, TLIF, lateral extracaviatary and transpedicular techniques which are increasingly used to perform partial or total corpectomies and anterior reconstructions from a posterior approach. These techniques were being alternative to the standard anterior approach with less morbidity and mortality. Patients and Methods: This study was performed between 2011 and 2014 on 100 patients with acute unstable thoracolumbar spine fractures which were divided into four groups: 30 patients underwent (TLIF), 28 patients underwent (PLIF), 28 patients underwent (PA) and 14 patients underwent (TPA). Neurological outcome, complications, operative times, kyphotic angle, vertebral height loss, spinal canal compromise, pulmonary functions, Denis pain and work scale, VAS score, ODI score, hospital stay, and estimated blood loss (EBL) were evaluated and compared in between the four groups. Results: There was a higher complication rate, increased EBL, and longer operative time with posteroanterior (PA) compared with PLIF, TLIF and (TPA). Patients undergoing PLIF, TLIF and TPA had a greater recovery of neurological function than those in whom PA were performed. Conclusion: TPA appeared to have more favorable results in improving the clinical and radiological outcome and no complications were reported apart from superficial wound infection which healed rapidly. The PLIF, TLIF and TPA appeared to have a comparable morbidity rate to PA. The different methods of anterior reconstruction from posterior approach are more favorable, applicable and convenient than PA approach.展开更多
文摘Background: The optimal surgical technique for lumbar spondylolithesis remains debated. Although posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) theoretically offers more advantages than posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF), the evidence remains inconclusive. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of PLIF versus PLF in patients with lumbar spondylolithesis. Patients and Methods: We enrolled 38 patients with lumbar spondylolithesis (degenerative and isthmic) who underwent PLIF (N = 19) or PLF (N = 19). We collected operative data and performed follow-up for 12 months after the surgery. The collected data were analyzed using the SPSS software to detected significant differences between both groups. Results: The PLF and PLIF groups exhibited similar pre-operative characteristics between both groups in terms of age (p = 0.57), sex (p = 0.73), clinical presentation (p = 1), required levels of fixation (p = 1), pre-operative VAS score (p = 0.43) or muscle weakness (p = 1). However, the PLIF group had significantly more blood loss and longer operative time than the PLF group. Moreover, both groups had similar levels of postoperative pain (up to six months after surgery), and post-operative complications. The rates of arthrodesis were higher in PLIF group than PLF group within six months while no significant difference within 12 months of follow-up. Conclusion: In our comparative study, we achieved comparison between pedicle screw fixation with posterolateral fusion alone (PLF) in compare with pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Results indicate better results of fusion rate in PLIF as regards arthrodesis with slightly more rate of complication than PLF. So we recommend PLIF in cases of lumbar spondylolithesis than PLF.
文摘Background: The different methods of anterior reconstruction and posterior instrumentation in surgical management of thoracolumbar spine fractures are PLIF, TLIF, lateral extracaviatary and transpedicular techniques which are increasingly used to perform partial or total corpectomies and anterior reconstructions from a posterior approach. These techniques were being alternative to the standard anterior approach with less morbidity and mortality. Patients and Methods: This study was performed between 2011 and 2014 on 100 patients with acute unstable thoracolumbar spine fractures which were divided into four groups: 30 patients underwent (TLIF), 28 patients underwent (PLIF), 28 patients underwent (PA) and 14 patients underwent (TPA). Neurological outcome, complications, operative times, kyphotic angle, vertebral height loss, spinal canal compromise, pulmonary functions, Denis pain and work scale, VAS score, ODI score, hospital stay, and estimated blood loss (EBL) were evaluated and compared in between the four groups. Results: There was a higher complication rate, increased EBL, and longer operative time with posteroanterior (PA) compared with PLIF, TLIF and (TPA). Patients undergoing PLIF, TLIF and TPA had a greater recovery of neurological function than those in whom PA were performed. Conclusion: TPA appeared to have more favorable results in improving the clinical and radiological outcome and no complications were reported apart from superficial wound infection which healed rapidly. The PLIF, TLIF and TPA appeared to have a comparable morbidity rate to PA. The different methods of anterior reconstruction from posterior approach are more favorable, applicable and convenient than PA approach.
