• Ping Yi, Xiangsheng Tang, Feng Yang, and Mingsheng Tan.
• Department of Orthopedic Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Ministry of Health, Beijing, China.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Oct 30; 99 (44): e22878.

BackgroundIn the current literature, for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis, the direct comparison of clinical outcomes and perioperative complications between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is limited. Whether the therapeutic effect of TLIF is better than that of PLIF is still controversial. In this retrospective controlled study, our aim was to compare their clinical outcomes and radiological results of the above two stabilization approaches after 1-year follow-up period.MethodsThis investigation was approved via the Institutional Review committee of China-Japan friendship hospital. This was a retrospective single-center analysis of subjects. We reviewed the patients with spondylolisthesis treated with TLIF or PLIF between July 2016 and February 2019 in our hospital. Patients with these conditions will be included: with the radiological evidence of degenerative lumbar spondylolismia with leg pain and/or low back pain, or the neurogenic claudication after failure of conventional conservative treatment for more than 6 months. The patients who received 3 levels or more intervertebral fusion levels were excluded. Patients without a completed medical history were excluded. Patients who had a history of lumbar spine surgery were also excluded. Clinical outcomes in our follow-up included functional outcomes, complications, and radiographic such as spondylolisthesis degree. The radiographs were obtained at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months during the outpatient follow-up.ResultsThis protocol will provide a solid theoretical basis for exploring which technique is better in treatment of spondylolisthesis.Trial RegistrationThis study protocol was registered in Research Registry (number: researchregistry6032).

21 keywords...

hide…