TY - JOUR
T1 - Posterolateral fusion with interbody for lumbar spondylolisthesis is associated with less repeat surgery than posterolateral fusion alone
AU - Macki, Mohamed
AU - Bydon, Mohamad
AU - Weingart, Robby
AU - Sciubba, Daniel
AU - Wolinsky, Jean Paul
AU - Gokaslan, Ziya L.
AU - Bydon, Ali
AU - Witham, Timothy
N1 - Funding Information:
Daniel Sciubba is the recipient of a research grant from Depuy Spine. He has consulting relationships with Medtronic, Nuvasiv, Globus, and Depuy.
Funding Information:
Timothy Witham is the recipient of a research grant from Eli Lilly and Company.
Funding Information:
Ziya Gokaslan is the recipient of research grants from Depuy Spine, AO Spine North America, Medtronic, NREF, Integra Life Sciences, and K2M. He receives fellowship support from AO Spine North America. He holds stock in Spinal Kinetics and US Spine.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/11/28
Y1 - 2015/11/28
N2 - Objective Posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (PLIF/TLIF) may improve the outcomes in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. This study aims to compare outcomes after posterolateral fusion (PLF) only versus PLF with interbody fusion (PLF + PLIF/TLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis. Methods We retrospectively reviewed103 patients who underwent first-time instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Anterior techniques and multilevel interbody fusions were excluded. All patients were followed for at least 2 years postoperatively. Clinical outcomes including back pain, radiculopathy, weakness, sensory deficits, and loss of bowel/bladder function were ascertained from clinic notes. Radiographic measures were calculated with Tillard percentage of spondylolisthesis. Reoperation for progression of degenerative disease, a primary endpoint, was indicated for all patients with (1) persistent or new-onset neurological symptoms; and (2) radiographic imaging that correlated with clinical presentation. Results Of the 103 patients, 56.31% were managed with PLF and 43.69% with PLF + PLIF/TLIF. On radiographic studies, spondylolisthesis improved by a mean of 13.06% after PLF + PLIF/TLIF versus 5.67% after PLF (p < 0.001). In comparison to PLF + PLIF/TLIF, patients undergoing PLF experienced higher rates of postoperative improvement in back pain, sensory deficits, motor weakness, radiculopathy, and bowel/bladder difficulty; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. The PLF cohort had a significantly higher incidence of reoperation (p = 0.011) and pseudoarthrosis/instrumentation failure (p = 0.043). In the logistical analyses, non-interbody fusion was the strongest predictor of reoperation for progression of degenerative disease. Conclusion Compared to PLF only, PLF + PLIF/TLIF were statistically significantly associated with a greater correction of spondylolisthesis. Patients with interbody fusions were less likely to undergo reoperation for degenerative disease progression compared to non-interbody fusions. However, greater listhesis correction and decreased reoperation in the PLF + PLIF/TLIF cohort should be weighed with favorable clinical outcomes in the PLF cohort.
AB - Objective Posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (PLIF/TLIF) may improve the outcomes in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. This study aims to compare outcomes after posterolateral fusion (PLF) only versus PLF with interbody fusion (PLF + PLIF/TLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis. Methods We retrospectively reviewed103 patients who underwent first-time instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Anterior techniques and multilevel interbody fusions were excluded. All patients were followed for at least 2 years postoperatively. Clinical outcomes including back pain, radiculopathy, weakness, sensory deficits, and loss of bowel/bladder function were ascertained from clinic notes. Radiographic measures were calculated with Tillard percentage of spondylolisthesis. Reoperation for progression of degenerative disease, a primary endpoint, was indicated for all patients with (1) persistent or new-onset neurological symptoms; and (2) radiographic imaging that correlated with clinical presentation. Results Of the 103 patients, 56.31% were managed with PLF and 43.69% with PLF + PLIF/TLIF. On radiographic studies, spondylolisthesis improved by a mean of 13.06% after PLF + PLIF/TLIF versus 5.67% after PLF (p < 0.001). In comparison to PLF + PLIF/TLIF, patients undergoing PLF experienced higher rates of postoperative improvement in back pain, sensory deficits, motor weakness, radiculopathy, and bowel/bladder difficulty; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. The PLF cohort had a significantly higher incidence of reoperation (p = 0.011) and pseudoarthrosis/instrumentation failure (p = 0.043). In the logistical analyses, non-interbody fusion was the strongest predictor of reoperation for progression of degenerative disease. Conclusion Compared to PLF only, PLF + PLIF/TLIF were statistically significantly associated with a greater correction of spondylolisthesis. Patients with interbody fusions were less likely to undergo reoperation for degenerative disease progression compared to non-interbody fusions. However, greater listhesis correction and decreased reoperation in the PLF + PLIF/TLIF cohort should be weighed with favorable clinical outcomes in the PLF cohort.
KW - Interbody
KW - Lumbar
KW - PLIF
KW - Posterolateral fusion
KW - Spondylolisthesis
KW - TLIF
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940371579&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940371579&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.08.014
DO - 10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.08.014
M3 - Article
C2 - 26318363
AN - SCOPUS:84940371579
SN - 0303-8467
VL - 138
SP - 117
EP - 123
JO - Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
JF - Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
ER -