Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) Versus Inter-transverse Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) for Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: a Comparative Study

Background Data: Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common condition. Indications for surgery other than failure of conservative treatment include progressive neurological deficits, intractable and symptomatic spinal instability. Surgical options include posterior interbody fusion and posterolateral fusi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Mahmoud Abdel-Ghany, Ahmed Abdel-Salam, Abdel-Hamid Atallah, Hany Abdel-Gawad, Mohamed El-Wardany, Mohamed Kabil
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Egyptian Spine Association 2014
Materias:	posterior lumbar interbody fusion Posterolateral Fusion Intertransverse fusion Spondylolisthesis Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system RC346-429
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/467a4b7bef264f5fb5c8d1cffbfd1747
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:467a4b7bef264f5fb5c8d1cffbfd1747
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:467a4b7bef264f5fb5c8d1cffbfd17472021-12-02T07:50:53ZPosterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) Versus Inter-transverse Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) for Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: a Comparative StudyDOI:10.21608/ESJ.2014.38812314-89502314-8969https://doaj.org/article/467a4b7bef264f5fb5c8d1cffbfd17472014-07-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.esj.journals.ekb.eg/article_3881.htmlhttps://doaj.org/toc/2314-8950https://doaj.org/toc/2314-8969Background Data: Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common condition. Indications for surgery other than failure of conservative treatment include progressive neurological deficits, intractable and symptomatic spinal instability. Surgical options include posterior interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion. Purpose: To compare the difference in results between lateral inter-transverse fusion (PLF) alone and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) regarding clinical outcome and fusion rate. Study Design: This is a retrospective randomized comparative study. Patients and Methods: Between May 2009 and April 2014 there were 132 patients with various degrees of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Fifty eight (43.9 %) patients were treated by pedicle screws and PLIF and 74 (56.1%) patients treated with pedicle screws and inter-transverse fusion. This study included 87 female patients (65.9 %) and 45 male patients (34.1 %) with average age 52.2 (age ranged from 43-62). There were 69 patients (52.2 %) had one segment fusion and 63 cases (47.8 %) had 2 segments fusion. All patients were evaluated clinically by Japanese Orthopedic Association Score (JOAS) for preoperative and postoperative and follow-up evaluation. Radiological assessment using plain X-ray and MRI was performed for assessment before and after the procedure. Flexion and extension plain X-ray films were obtained and depended upon for confirmation of fusion/stability. The mean follow up period was 18 months. Results: There was significant improvement in the final outcome of both groups as there mean improvement rate (IR) for Group A was 89.08±%10.6 (ranged from 60-100 %). However Group B at the final outcome had a mean IR of 81.813.8%± ranged from (45-100). Fusion rate was 82% for group A compared to 89% for group B. Patients satisfaction was 89% for Group A while in Group B 94% of patients were satisfied. Conclusion: There were no significant differences in results between lateral intertransverse fusion and PLIF regarding clinical outcome or fusion rate. Cost effectiveness may be considered as an important factor for decision making in treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. (2013ESJ063)Mahmoud Abdel-Ghany Ahmed Abdel-Salam Abdel-Hamid Atallah Hany Abdel-GawadMohamed El-WardanyMohamed KabilEgyptian Spine Associationarticleposterior lumbar interbody fusionPosterolateral FusionIntertransversefusionSpondylolisthesisNeurology. Diseases of the nervous systemRC346-429ENEgyptian Spine Journal, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 18-25 (2014)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	posterior lumbar interbody fusion Posterolateral Fusion Intertransverse fusion Spondylolisthesis Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system RC346-429
spellingShingle	posterior lumbar interbody fusion Posterolateral Fusion Intertransverse fusion Spondylolisthesis Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system RC346-429 Mahmoud Abdel-Ghany Ahmed Abdel-Salam Abdel-Hamid Atallah Hany Abdel-Gawad Mohamed El-Wardany Mohamed Kabil Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) Versus Inter-transverse Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) for Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: a Comparative Study
description	Background Data: Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common condition. Indications for surgery other than failure of conservative treatment include progressive neurological deficits, intractable and symptomatic spinal instability. Surgical options include posterior interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion. Purpose: To compare the difference in results between lateral inter-transverse fusion (PLF) alone and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) regarding clinical outcome and fusion rate. Study Design: This is a retrospective randomized comparative study. Patients and Methods: Between May 2009 and April 2014 there were 132 patients with various degrees of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Fifty eight (43.9 %) patients were treated by pedicle screws and PLIF and 74 (56.1%) patients treated with pedicle screws and inter-transverse fusion. This study included 87 female patients (65.9 %) and 45 male patients (34.1 %) with average age 52.2 (age ranged from 43-62). There were 69 patients (52.2 %) had one segment fusion and 63 cases (47.8 %) had 2 segments fusion. All patients were evaluated clinically by Japanese Orthopedic Association Score (JOAS) for preoperative and postoperative and follow-up evaluation. Radiological assessment using plain X-ray and MRI was performed for assessment before and after the procedure. Flexion and extension plain X-ray films were obtained and depended upon for confirmation of fusion/stability. The mean follow up period was 18 months. Results: There was significant improvement in the final outcome of both groups as there mean improvement rate (IR) for Group A was 89.08±%10.6 (ranged from 60-100 %). However Group B at the final outcome had a mean IR of 81.813.8%± ranged from (45-100). Fusion rate was 82% for group A compared to 89% for group B. Patients satisfaction was 89% for Group A while in Group B 94% of patients were satisfied. Conclusion: There were no significant differences in results between lateral intertransverse fusion and PLIF regarding clinical outcome or fusion rate. Cost effectiveness may be considered as an important factor for decision making in treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. (2013ESJ063)
format	article
author	Mahmoud Abdel-Ghany Ahmed Abdel-Salam Abdel-Hamid Atallah Hany Abdel-Gawad Mohamed El-Wardany Mohamed Kabil
author_facet	Mahmoud Abdel-Ghany Ahmed Abdel-Salam Abdel-Hamid Atallah Hany Abdel-Gawad Mohamed El-Wardany Mohamed Kabil
author_sort	Mahmoud Abdel-Ghany
title	Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) Versus Inter-transverse Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) for Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: a Comparative Study
title_short	Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) Versus Inter-transverse Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) for Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: a Comparative Study
title_full	Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) Versus Inter-transverse Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) for Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: a Comparative Study
title_fullStr	Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) Versus Inter-transverse Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) for Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: a Comparative Study
title_full_unstemmed	Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) Versus Inter-transverse Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) for Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: a Comparative Study
title_sort	posterior lumbar interbody fusion (plif) versus inter-transverse posterolateral fusion (plf) for treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study
publisher	Egyptian Spine Association
publishDate	2014
url	https://doaj.org/article/467a4b7bef264f5fb5c8d1cffbfd1747
work_keys_str_mv	AT mahmoudabdelghany posteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionplifversusintertransverseposterolateralfusionplffortreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesisacomparativestudy AT ahmedabdelsalam posteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionplifversusintertransverseposterolateralfusionplffortreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesisacomparativestudy AT abdelhamidatallah posteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionplifversusintertransverseposterolateralfusionplffortreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesisacomparativestudy AT hanyabdelgawad posteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionplifversusintertransverseposterolateralfusionplffortreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesisacomparativestudy AT mohamedelwardany posteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionplifversusintertransverseposterolateralfusionplffortreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesisacomparativestudy AT mohamedkabil posteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionplifversusintertransverseposterolateralfusionplffortreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesisacomparativestudy
_version_	1718399150776647680

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) Versus Inter-transverse Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) for Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: a Comparative Study

Ejemplares similares