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.

Introduction. MRI imaging is carried out to identify levels of degenerative disc disease, and in some cases to identify a definite surgical target at which decompression should take place. We wanted to see if repeat MRI scans due to a prolonged time between the initial diagnostic MRI scan of the lumbar sacral spine, and the MRI scan immediately pre-operatively, due for the desire for a ‘fresh’ MRI scan pre-operatively, altered the level or type of procedure that they would have. Methods. This was a retrospective observational cohort study. Inclusion criteria- all patients with more than one MRI scan before their surgical procedure on the lumbar sacral spine, these were limited to patients that had either, discectomy, microdiscectomy, laminotomy decompression, laminectomy decompression and fusion, and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Exclusion criteria- all patients with anterior approaches, all patients without decompression and all non lumbar sacral patients. Outcome measures were if there was a change between the pre-operative MRI scans, which would have changed the operative level of decompression, added other levels of decompression or type of surgery than primarily decided. Results. 84 patients were identified with our inclusion criteria with two or more pre-operative MRI scans. The repeat MRI did not change the surgical target for all 84 patients. Conclusion. Repeat MRI scanning does not alter the surgical target level, and therefore does not change management. It can delay the initial primary procedure which can lead to progressive neurology, which may be irreversible and should be avoided unless the distribution of neurology has changed

During the pandemic of COVID-19, some patients with COVID-19 may need emergency surgeries. As spine surgeons, it is our responsibility to ensure appropriate treatment to the patients with COVID-19 and spinal diseases. A protocol for spinal surgery and related management on patients with COVID-19 has been reviewed. Patient preparation for emergency surgeries, indications, and contraindications of emergency surgeries, operating room preparation, infection control precautions and personal protective equipments (PPE), anesthesia management, intraoperative procedures, postoperative management, medical waste disposal, and surveillance of healthcare workers were reviewed. It should be safe for surgeons with PPE of protection level 2 to perform spinal surgeries on patients with COVID-19. Standardized and careful surgical procedures should be necessary to reduce the exposure to COVID-19.