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).

Should the level of the posterior instrumentation combined with the intermediate screw be a short segment or a long segment in thoracolumbar fractures with fusion to the fractured segment?

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

The use of screw at the fracture level in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures

Selection of Short- or Long-Segment Posterior Fixation for Treatment of Unstable Thoracolumbar Fractures

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

Twenty year outcomes following short-segment posterior instrumentation and fusion for thoracolumbar burst fractures: A retrospective observational study

Outcomes of Two Types of Short-Segment Pedicle Screw Fixation for Thoracolumbar Fractures

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

Comparative finite element analysis of posterior short segment fixation constructs with or without intermediate screws in the fractured vertebrae for the treatment of type a thoracolumbar fracture

Transpedicular Fixation in Management of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: Monosegmental Fixation Versus Short-Segment Instrumentation.

Safety and efficacy of short percutaneous fixation in AO3 and AO4 lumbar fractures: a single-centre experience of 35 cases

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

Posterior short-segmental fixation combined with intermediate screws vs conventional intersegmental fixation for monosegmental thoracolumbar fractures.

A Biomechanical Comparison of 3 Different Posterior Fixation Techniques for 2-Level Lumbar Spinal Disorders.

Comparison of Biomechanics in Two Methods of Lumbar Fusion Using Pedicle Screw Fixation

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

[Treatment of Thoracolumbar Mono-Segmental Fracture with Posterior Short-Segment Fixation in Combination with Intermediate Screws: a Short-Term Outcome].

Biomechanical comparison of posterior intermediate screw fixation techniques with hybrid monoaxial and polyaxial pedicle screws in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture: a finite element study

Long versus Short Segment Instrumentation in Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Vertebral Fracture

P160. Comparison of the Effect of Posterolateral Fusion or Not on Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures