[Comparative study on effectiveness of modified-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery in treatment of mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis in middle-aged and elderly patients].

Objective To compare the effectiveness of modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (modified-TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis in middle-aged and elderly patients. Methods The clinical data of 106 patients with mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis (Meyerding classification≤Ⅱ degree) who met the selection criteria between January 2015 and January 2017 were retrospectively analysed. All patients were divided into modified-TLIF group (54 cases) and PLIF group (52 cases) according to the different surgical methods. There was no significant difference in preoperative clinical data of gender, age, disease duration, sliding vertebra, Meyerding grade, and slippage type between the two groups ( P>0.05). The intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative bed time, hospital stay, and complications of the two groups were recorded and compared. The improvement of pain and function were evaluated by the visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score at preoperation, 1 week, and 1, 6, 12 months after operation, and last follow-up, respectively. The effect of slip correction was evaluated by slip angle and intervertebral altitude at preoperation and last follow-up, and the effectiveness of fusion was evaluated according to Suk criteria. Results All patients were followed up, the modified-TLIF group was followed up 25-36 months (mean, 32.7 months), the PLIF group was followed up 24-38 months (mean, 33.3 months). The intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative bed time, and hospital stay of the modified-TLIF group were significantly less than those of the PLIF group ( P<0.05). The VAS score and JOA score of both groups were significantly improved at each time point after operation ( P<0.05); the scores of the modified-TLIF group were significantly better than those of the PLIF group at 1 and 6 months after operation ( P<0.05). The slip angle and intervertebral altitude of both groups were obviously improved at last follow-up ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups at preoperation and last follow-up ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, the fusion rate of the modified-TLIF group and the PLIF group was 96.3% (52/54) and 98.1% (51/52), respectively, and no significant difference was found between the two groups ( χ 2=0.000, P=1.000). About complications, there was no significant difference between the two groups in nerve injury on the opposite side within a week, incision infection, and pulmonary infection ( P>0.05). No case of nerve injury on the operation side within a week or dural laceration occurred in the modified-TLIF group, while 8 cases (15.4%, P=0.002) and 4 cases (7.7%, P=0.054) occurred in the PLIF group respectively. Conclusion Modified-TLIF and PLIF are effective in the treatment of mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis in middle-aged and elderly patients. However, modified-TLIF has relatively less trauma, lower blood loss, lower drainage volume, lower incidence of dural laceration and nerve injury, which promotes enhanced recovery after surgery.

[1]  R. Epstein,et al.  Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion without general anesthesia: operative and clinical outcomes in 100 consecutive patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up. , 2019, Neurosurgical focus.

[2]  Jie Hao,et al.  Minimally Invasive Versus Traditional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Single-Level Spondylolisthesis Grades 1 and 2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. , 2019, World neurosurgery.

[3]  Michael Y. Wang,et al.  Reduced Acute Care Costs With the ERAS® Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared With Conventional Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2018, Neurosurgery.

[4]  Yuan Zhang,et al.  Comparison Between Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. , 2018, World neurosurgery.

[5]  K. Rijkers,et al.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[6]  T. Albert,et al.  Interbody Fusion Techniques in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis , 2017, Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.

[7]  Jie Zhao,et al.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes of bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with stenosis. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[8]  Michael Y. Wang,et al.  Development of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach for lumbar spinal fusion. , 2017, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[9]  Jiaming Liu,et al.  A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis , 2016, European Spine Journal.

[10]  M. Iwasaki,et al.  Patient-Based Surgical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Patient Satisfaction Analysis , 2016, Spine.

[11]  T. Witham,et al.  Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity , 2011, Neurological research.

[12]  K. Cho,et al.  Adding Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion to Pedicle Screw Fixation and Posterolateral Fusion After Decompression in Spondylolytic Spondylolisthesis , 1997, Spine.