Abstract:Objective:To compare the advantages and disadvantages of posterior interbody fusion by intermuscular approach and oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis (degree Ⅰ-Ⅱ).Methods:A prospective study was conducted on 115 patients who underwent surgical treatment for lumbar spondylolisthesis from June 2016 to June 2018. These patients include 33 males and 82 females, ranging in age from 41 to 72 years, with a mean of (57±7) years. 56 cases (posterior interbody fusion group) were treated by intermuscular approach and 59 cases (oblique lateral interbody fusion group) were treated by oblique lateral approach and posterior pedicle screw fixation. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, imaging results, clinical results and complications were compared between the two groups.Results:All patients were followed up with an average of (27±3) months (range from 12 to 48 months). The operative time and intraoperative blood loss of oblique lateral interbody fusion group were significantly less than posterior interbody fusion group (P<0.05). There was no incision infection and nerve injury were observed in two groups. Besides, the VAS score at 72 h after surgery of oblique lateral interbody fusion group (1.10±0.08) were significantly less than posterior interbody fusion group (1.51±0.15). According to the analysis of variance with repeated measures design, the difference between the posterior group and the oblique lateral fusion group was statistically significant in terms of lumbar lordosis angle and spondylolisthesis rate at postoperation and the last follow-up (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between different groups in spondylolisthesis angle, sacral inclination angle and intervertebral space height. Both the two groups showed significant improvement in ODI during the final follow-up (P<0.05), but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. The incidence of complications in the posterior fusion group was significantly higher than in the oblique lateral fusion group (P<0.05). The fusion rate of posterior interbody fusion group was 96.4% and 94.9% in oblique lateral interbody fusion group, while the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). During the follow-up, loosening, displacement, breakage of pedicle screw, displacement of intervertebral cages or obvious degeneration of adjacent segments were not observed.Conclusions:The posterior interbody fusion by intermuscular approach and the oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation take well clinical results for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis (degree Ⅰ-Ⅱ ). Oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation through intermuscular approach takes advantages of quick operation, less trauma, less bleeding, high safety, quick recovery and no interference to spinal canal, which can be a good choice for treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis (degree Ⅰ-Ⅱ).

Treating Traumatic Lumbosacral Spondylolisthesis Using Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Three Years Follow Up.

Analysis of the Outcome Three Different Surgical Treatment for Spondylolisthesis

Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis with Selective Segmental Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Spinal Fusion

A Modified Surgical Technique of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Comparative study of oblique lateral approach and posterior fusion in the treatment of grade Ⅰ-Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis

GSS pedicle screw system and interbody autogenous iliac bone graft fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis

Is stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion superior to instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-level, low-grade, lumbar spondylolisthesis?

[Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis by Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion].

Surgery strategy for grades Ⅲ and Ⅳ spondylolisthesis in adults

Comparative study of three surgical procedures of lumbar interbody fusion for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis

Clinical Study of Posterior Surgical Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

[The Treatment of Severe Lumbar Dysplastic Spondylolisthesis].

Sagittal Reconstruction of Lumbosacral Contiguous Double-Level Spondylolytic Spondylolisthesis: a Comparison of Double-Level and Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis with posterior decompression,spinal fusion and pedicle screws instrumentation

Long-term Result of Posterior 360 Degree Fusion for Spondylolisthesis and Instability of Lumbar Spine

Modified posterior-anterior operation for treatment of serious lumbar fracture and dislocation]

Transforminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion in Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis：a Mid-Term Follow-Up Study

[360 Degrees Fixation of Lumbar Spine].

Does Simultaneous Fusion of Preexisting Spinal Canal Stenosis Adjacent to Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Achieve a Better Clinical Outcome? A Retrospective Study with More than 5-year Follow-Up

Surgical Treatment Of Sacral Fractures Following Lumbosacral Arthrodesis: Case Report And Literature Review

Outcome of interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion with transpedicular fixation for lumbar spondylolisthesis