A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes Between PLF and PLIF in Surgical Treatment of Lumber Spondylolisthesis

Abstract

Spondylolisthesis is defined as forward slippage of cephalad vertebrae on a caudal vertebra. The optimal surgical technique for lumbar spondylolisthesis remains debated. Although posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) theoretically offers more advantages than posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF), the evidence remains inconclusive. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of PLIF versus PLF in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis to help us to determine which fusion method is better for each case. We enrolled 28 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent PLIF (N =14) or PLF (N = 14). We collected preoperative and operative data and performed a clinical follow-up (carried out using Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and complication rate for 6 months after the surgery). Result showed that PLIF group had significantly longer operative time and better (ODI) improvement than the PLF group. There was no significant statistical difference in (VAS) and complication rate. The PLIF technique is recommended for patients presenting with high preoperative (ODI) scores, whereas the PLF technique is preferred for patients with elevated surgical risk.