@article{JSS4694,
author = {Jason P. Kelly and Christopher Alcala-Marquez and John M. Dawson and Amir A. Mehbod and Manuel R. Pinto},
title = {Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented posterolateral versus instrumented posterolateral with transforaminal lumbar interbody single-level fusion},
journal = {Journal of Spine Surgery},
volume = {5},
number = {3},
year = {2019},
keywords = {},
abstract = {Background: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated by posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) versus PLF with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLF + TLIF). Studies of PLF versus PLF + TLIF have shown either equivalence or support for PLF + TLIF in lumbar spine surgery. Many are heterogeneous in the conditions treated, with few considering only spondylolisthesis of degenerative origin. Radiographic outcomes tend to favor PLF + TLIF, but this has not translated into better clinical outcomes.
Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. Forty-nine patients undergoing single-level PLF and seventy patients undergoing single-level PLF + TLIF with two-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), implant cost, surgical data, and complications were analyzed.
Results: There was no difference in ODI improvement at two-year follow-up between the cohorts (P=0.97). Dural tears were more common in the PLF cohort (P<0.01), but otherwise complication and reoperation rates were similar. Implant cost (P<0.01) and operative time (P=0.01) were higher in the PLF + TLIF cohort.
Conclusions: The addition of a TLIF to a PLF did not result in a functional improvement in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis as measured by the ODI.},
issn = {2414-4630}, url = {https://jss.amegroups.org/article/view/4694}
}