• Reuven Gepstein, Shay Shabat, Michael Reichel, Ilia Pikarsky, and Yoram Folman.
• Sapir Medical Center, 57 Tchernichowski, Kfar-Saba 44281, Israel.
• Spine J. 2008 Sep 1; 8 (5): 741-6.

Background ContextUp to a fifth of the patients who had discectomy undergo spinal fusion because of disabling low back pain.PurposeTo compare the clinical outcome of percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PPLIF) to that of open posterior lumbar fusion (PLF).Study Design/SettingTwo surgical methods that were tried in sequence at a university affiliated hospital.Patient SampleSixty patients with disabling postdiscectomy low back pain.Outcome MeasuresPain intensity was scored on a visual analog scale (VAS) and the degree of disability was scored by the Oswestry disability index (ODI).MethodsThirty patients were treated by PPLIF. The outcome, after 24 months or more, was compared retrospectively with that of 30 consecutive suitable subjects who had been treated by PLF with pedicle screw fixation by the same surgeons for the same indication.ResultsIn the PPLIF group, as compared with PLF group, mean operating time was shorter, blood loss was negligible, and mean hospital time was halved. By the last follow-up visit (greater than or equal to 2 years), pain and disability in PLF group had diminished by 31.9% and 20.1%, respectively. The corresponding figures in PPLIF group were 55.4% and 42.7%, respectively.ConclusionsIn the context of postdiscectomy low back pain, PPLIF has proven, thus far, to be a safe procedure with improved clinical results.

17 keywords...

hide…