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).

Analysis of the Outcome Three Different Surgical Treatment for Spondylolisthesis

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

Anterior Surgical Treatment of Type Ⅱ Traumatic Spondylolisthesis of the Axis

Treatment of Spondylolisthesis Through Modified Wiltse Approach

Clinical Research of Minimally Invasive Surgical Management for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Via Quadrant System Assisted Sextant-R System.

Surgery strategy for grades Ⅲ and Ⅳ spondylolisthesis in adults

Clinical Research of Minimally Invasive Surgical Management for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Via Quadrant System

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

Clinical Comprehension of Thoracolumbar Spine Fracture Treatmented with Posterior Monosegmental Vertebral Pedicle Screw Fixation at the Injured Vetebrae

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

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

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

Comparative Analysis of Three Posterior-Only Surgical Techniques for Isthmic L5-S1 Spondylolisthesis

Radiologic Analysis of Factors Predicting the Surgical Reduction of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Clinical Study of Posterior Surgical Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

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

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

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

Efficacy of One-Stage Posterior-Anterior Approach for Treatment of Severe Thoracolumbar Fractures

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

[Posterior Fusion Versus Posterior Interbody Fusion in Segmental Spinal Fixation for Aged Spondylolisthesis].