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).

Comparison of Effect of Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation Combined with Posterolateral Fusion or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

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

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

A Comparative Study of Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Pedicle Screw Fixation for 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?

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

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

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

Comparison of posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: Analysis of spino-pelvic sagittal balance and postoperative chronic low back pain

Posterolateral lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis

Clinical Study of Posterior Surgical Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Comparative study of anterior lumbar intervertebral fusion with posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis

[Posterior Interbody Fusion Versus Improved Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Segmental Spinal Fixation for Aged Spondylolisthesis with Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis].

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

Comparison between Autologous Bone Grafting and Cage Fusion with Pedicle Screw Fixation and Simple Cage Fusion with Pedicle Screw Fixation in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Adult Spondylolisthesis

Topping-off Surgery Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Intervertebral Fusion for Combined One-level Spondylolisthesis and Adjacent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Comparative Study of Clinical Efficacy and Radiographic Outcomes With a Two-year Follow-up

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Two Methods of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Spondylolisthesis.

TLW versus PLIF for treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis combined with spinal stenosis in the elderly

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

Treatment of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis by Posterior Pedicle Screw Joint Combined with Cage Fusion

Comparison of Three Different Posterior Fixation Techniques in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Two-Level Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: at a Mean Follow Up Time of 46 Months