Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2020; 15(03): 507-515
DOI: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_88_19
Original Article

Prospective nonrandomized analytical comparative study of clinicoradiological relationship and quality of life between lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral lumbar fusion

Rati Agrawal
Department of Neurosurgery, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi
,
Arun Saroha
Department of Neurosurgery, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi
,
Vijendra Jain
Department of Neurosurgery, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi
,
Bipin Walia
Department of Neurosurgery, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Study Design: This prospective, nonrandomized, analytic comparative study analyzed the outcome of 100 patients who underwent spinal fusion surgeries (Posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF]) with 6 months of follow-up. Objective: The aim of our study was to compare clinicoradiological outcome of the lumbar spinal fusion surgeries (PLF vs. PLIF/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF]), to assess the quality of life pre- and post-operatively in all patients, and to compare the results within the groups. Summary of Background Data: We retrieved the articles related to posterolateral fusion (PLF) and PLIF/TLIF through computer-assisted PubMed and Cochrane database search. Most of the studies in previous literature did not show any significant difference in the success of fusion between the two groups. However, the global outcome in terms of clinical and radiological parameters was good in all the studies. Materials and Methods: Senior neurosurgeons who are part of the study treated 100 patients presented with degenerative disc disease (DDD). Patients underwent two types of spinal fusion surgeries: Posterolateral fusion (PLF) and PLIF/TLIF, and those two groups were compared for clinicoradiological outcome, successful fusion, and quality of life at 6 months of follow-up. Results were analyzed statistically using SPSS version 21.0 and presented in terms of frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. Measurements were compared between groups using the Student's t-test (independent and paired) for normally distributed variables. Percentage was compared with Chi-square test in various parameters. Statistical significance was determined with P values; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Patients aged between 30and 65 years with lumbar DDD who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Patients were operated for 1–3 vertebral levels and showed clinical satisfactory outcome on visual analog scale (P = 0.004) and modified-Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire (Oswestry disability index) (P = 0.000) at 6 months as compared to the preoperative data, which was statistically significant. Radiological outcome in terms of lumbar lordotic angle (LLA, P = 0.000) and ratio of disc space height (DSH) and height of immediate superior vertebral body (P = 0.000) at 3 months of follow-up was also statistically significant. All of our patients showed a well-placed implant (screws and cage) in the follow-up period. Our patients showed successful fusion more in the PLIF group (81.25%) as compared to the PLF group (67.30%), but those results are not statistically significant (P = 0.112), and all of our patients showed statistically significant difference (P = 0.000) in quality of life score at 6 months of follow-up when compared with the preoperative score. Conclusions: We concluded from our study and after the review of literature that the patients with lumbar DDD should undergo spinal instrumentation surgery either PLF or PLIF as per the requirement as these surgeries provide good clinical and radiological outcomes in terms of pain, disability index, LLA, and maintenance of DSH. Although both the groups have few degrees of risks and complications, these are not major one and can be managed easily. The fusion rates are similar in both the groups (PLF and PLIF). Quality of life index showed significant difference within 1 week, after 3 months, and after 6 months of surgery in all of our patients.

Key-words:

Degenerative disc disease - lumbar lordotic angle - Oswestry disability index - posterior lumbar interbody fusion - posterolateral fusion - quality of life score - transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - visual analog scale

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.




Publication History

Received: 24 September 2019

Accepted: 20 February 2020

Article published online:
16 August 2022

© 2020. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Kelsey JL, White AA 3rd. Epidemiology and impact of low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1980;5:133-42.
  • 2 Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 2000;25:2940-52.
  • 3 Oemar M. EQ-5D-5L User Guide Version 2.0; 2013.
  • 4 Aygün H, Cakar A, Hüseyinoǧlu N, Hüseyinoǧlu U, Celik R. Clinical and radiological comparison of posterolateral fusion and posterior interbody fusion techniques for multilevel lumbar spinal stabilization in manual workers. Asian Spine J 2014;8:571-80.
  • 5 Naderi S, Benzel EC. Spine Surgery-Techniques, Complication Avoidance and Management. History of Spine Surgery. 3rd ed., Vol. 13. Ch. 1. p. 123.
  • 6 Brantigan JW, Steffee AD. A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:2106-7.
  • 7 Lidar Z, Beaumont A, Lifshutz J, Maiman DJ. Clinical and radiological relationship between posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral lumbar fusion. Surg Neurol 2005;64:303-8.8
  • 8 Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthesis: A prospective controlled study in the Han nationality. Int Orthop 2009;33:1043-7.
  • 9 Wu Y, Tang H, Li Z, Zhang Q, Shi Z. Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar degenerative disease. J Clin Neurosci 2011;18:780-3.
  • 10 Høy K, Bünger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen Es, Li H, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: A randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine j 2013;22:2022-9.
  • 11 Woo Lee G. Comparison of posterolateral lumbar fusion and posterior lumbar. Spine 2014;39:e1475-80.
  • 12 Al Barbarawi Mm, Audat Zm, Allouh MZ. Analytical comparison study of the clinical and radiological outcome of spine fixation using posterolateral, posterior lumber interbody and transforaminal lumber interbody spinal fixation techniques to treat lumber spine degenerative disc disease. Scoliosis 2015;10:17.
  • 13 Jalalpour K, Neumann P, Johansson C, Hedlund R. A randomized controlled trial comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and uninstrumented posterolateral fusion in the degenerative lumbar spine. Global Spine J 2015;5:322-8.
  • 14 Luo J, Cao K, Yu T, Li L, Huang S, Gong M, et al. Comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis. Clin Spine Surg 2017;30:e915-22.
  • 15 Campbell R. Posterolateral versus interbody fusion. Global Spine J 2017;7:482-90.
  • 16 Makanji H, Schoenfeld AJ, Bhalla A, Bono CM. Critical analysis of trends in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders revisited: Influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J 2018;27:1868-76.