Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in adult spondylolisthesis

• Autor(a) principal: Dantas, Fernando Luiz Rolemberg
• Data de Publicação: 2007
• Outros Autores: Prandini, Mirto Nelso [UNIFESP], Ferreira, Mauro A.T. [UNIFESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0004-282X2007000500006; http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/3885
• topic: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF); posterior lumbar fusion; spondylolisthesis; pedicle screws; lumbar spine; spinal instrumentation; fusão intersomática lombar posterior; fusão lombar posterior; espondilolistese; fixação pedicular; coluna lombar; instrumentação vertebral

The purpose of this study was to compare patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis submitted to two different surgical approaches, and evaluate the results and outcomes in both groups. In a two-year period, 60 adult patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis, both isthmic and degenerative, were submitted to surgery at the Biocor Institute, Brazil. All patients were operated on by the same surgeon (FLRD) in a single institution, and the results were analyzed prospectively. Group I comprised the first 30 consecutive patients that were submitted to a posterior lumbar spinal fusion with pedicle screws (PLF). Group II comprised the last 30 consecutive patients submitted to a posterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure (PLIF) with pedicle screws. All patients underwent foraminotomy for nerve root decompression. Clinical evaluation was carried out using the Prolo Economic and Functional Scale and the Rolland-Morris and the Oswestry questionnaire. Mean age was 52.4 for Group I (PLF), and 47.6 for Group II (PLIF). The mean follow-up was 3.2 years. Both surgical procedures were effective. The PLIF with pedicle screws group presented better clinical outcomes. Group I presented more complications when compared with Group II. Group II presented better results as indicated in the Prolo Economic and Functional Scale.