Skip Navigation LinksHome > March 15, 2009 - Volume 34 - Issue 6 > Significantly Improved Outcomes With a Less Invasive Posteri...
Spine:
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181973e35
Clinical Case Series

Significantly Improved Outcomes With a Less Invasive Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Incorporating Total Facetectomy

Kasis, Ata G. MRCS; Marshman, Laurence A. G. MD, FRCSN; Krishna, Manoj FRCS, MCh (Orth); Bhatia, Chandra K. MOrth, FRCS

Collapse Box

Abstract

Study Design. Original study.

Objective. Prospective comparison of clinical outcomes after a standard posterior lumbar interbody fusion (ST-PLIF) and after a limited exposure PLIF incorporating total facetectomy (LI-PLIF).

Summary of Background Data. Most groups have reported significantly improved clinical outcomes after ST-PLIF. To our knowledge, however, a comparison of outcomes between ST-PLIF and the LI-PLIF that we herein describe has not been reported before.

Methods. Patients were included who had suffered chronic low back pain for a minimum of 2 years that was unresponsive to conservative treatment. N = 114 consecutive patients underwent ST-PLIF, whereas n = 209 underwent LI-PLIF. All patients underwent pre- and postoperative evaluations for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), short-form 36 (SF-36), and visual analogue scores (VAS). The minimum follow-up for either group was 2 years.

Results. There was a significant improvement in the ODI (22.5 ± 1.0, P < 0.001), VAS for back pain (3.8 ± 0.1, P = 0.003), VAS for leg pain (4.0 ± 0.2, P = 0.002), and SF-36 for bodily pain (14.7 ± 0.9, P = 0.012) after ST-PLIF. However, there was a significantly greater improvement in all scores after LI-PLIF: ODI (28.8 ± 1.4 vs. 22.5 ± 1.0, P < 0.001), VAS for back pain (5.4 ± 0.2 vs. 3.8 ± 0.1, P = 0.001), VAS for leg pain (5.1 ± 0.2 vs. 4.0 ± 0.2, P < 0.001), and SF-36 for bodily pain (18.5 ± 0.8 vs. 14.7 ± 0.9, P = 0.003). There was a significantly shorter duration of hospital stay after LI-PLIF (2.24 ± 0.057 days) than after ST-PLIF (4.04 ± 0.13 days) (P = 0.005). Operative complications occurred in 19.3% of ST-PLIF and in 6.7% of LI-PLIF.

Conclusion. Clinical outcomes were significantly improved after both ST-PLIF and LI-PLIF. However, outcomes were significantly better after LI-PLIF than after ST-PLIF. Significantly shortened hospital stay with LI-PLIF probably reflected the “less invasive” technique per se. Significantly better clinical outcomes with fewer complications after LI-PLIF, however, potentially reflected maneuvers singular to LI-PLIF: (1) preservation of posterior elements, (2) avoidance of far lateral dissection over the transverse processes, (3) bilateral total facetectomy, (4) fewer neurologic complications, and (5) avoidance of iliac crest autograft. LI-PLIF is therefore recommended over ST-PLIF.

© 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Follow Us!

  

Login

Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.