Abstract
Posterior lumber interbody fusion (PLIF) has the theoretical advantage of optimising foraminal decompression, improving sagittal alignment and providing a more consistent fusion mass in adult patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) compared to posterolateral fusion (PLF). Previous studies with only short-term follow-up have not shown a difference between fusion techniques.
An observational cohort study was performed of a single surgeon's patients treating IS over a ten year period (52 patients), using either PLF (21 pts) or PLIF (31pts). Preoperative and 12-month data were collected prospectively, and long-term follow-up was by mailed questionnaire. Preoperative patient characteristics between the two groups were not significantly different. Average follow-up was 7 years, 10 months, and 81% of questionnaires were returned. Outcome measures were Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS), SF-12v2 and SF-6D R2. The SF-6D R2 is a “whole of health” measure.
PLIF provided better short- and long-term results than PLF. The PLIF group had significantly better LBOS scores in the long term, and non-significantly better RMDQ scores in the long term. As measured by RMDQ Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) short term set at 4, RMDQ MCID set at 8, the LBOS MCID set at 7.5 points and by SF-12v2 physical component score (PCS), PLIF patients performed better than PLF patients. When analysing single level fusions alone, the difference is more pronounced, with PCS, mental component scores and SF-6D R2 all being significantly better in the PLIF group rather than the PLF group.
This paper strongly supports the use of PLIF to obtain equivalent or superior clinical outcomes when compared to PLF for spinal fusion for lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. The results of this study are the first to report to such long-term follow-up comparing these two procedures.
