Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine

A review

Restricted access

Object

The authors compared the effectiveness of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (iPLIF) and instrumented posterolateral fusion (iPLF) for the treatment of low-back pain (LBP) due to degenerative lumbar disease.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies through December 2009 were identified using a retrieval strategy of sensitive and specific searches. The study design, participant characteristics, interventions, follow-up rate and period, and outcomes were abstracted after the assessment of methodological quality of the trials. Analyses were performed following the method guidelines of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

Results

Nine studies were identified—3 RCTs and 6 comparative observational studies. No significant difference was found between the 2 fusion procedures in the global assessment of clinical outcome (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.71–3.22, p = 0.29) and complication rate (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16–1.86, p = 0.34). Both techniques were effective in reducing pain and improving functional disability, as well as restoring intervertebral disc height. Instrumented PLIF was more effective in achieving solid fusion (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.35–5.00, p = 0.004), a lower reoperation rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.03–1.29, p = 0.09), and better restoration of segmental angle and lumbar lordotic angle than iPLF. There were no significant differences between the fusion methods regarding blood loss (weighted mean difference –179.63, 95% CI –516.42 to 157.15, p = 0.30), and operating time (weighted mean difference 8.03, 95% CI –45.46 to 61.53, p = 0.77).

Conclusions

The authors' analysis provided moderate-quality evidence that iPLIF has the advantages of higher fusion rate and better restoration of spinal alignment over iPLF. No significant differences were identified between iPLIF and iPLF concerning clinical outcome, complication rate, operating time, and blood loss.

Abbreviations used in this paper: iPLF = instrumented posterolateral fusion; iPLIF = instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion; LBP = low-back pain; RCT = randomized controlled trial.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Shun-Wu Fan, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou 310016, People's Republic of China. email: zjzhoufrank@gmail.com.Please include this information when citing this paper: published online May 27, 2011; DOI: 10.3171/2011.4.SPINE10330.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings
References
  • 1

    Abdu WALurie JDSpratt KFTosteson ANZhao WTosteson TD: Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:235123602009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Asazuma TYamugishi MSato MIchimura SFujikawa KCrock HV: Posterior spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases using the Crock-Yamagishi (C-Y) spinal fixation system. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:1741772004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Bjarke Christensen FStender Hansen ELaursen MThomsen KBünger CE: Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion: randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:126912772002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Cheng LNie LZhang L: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a prospective controlled study in the Han nationality. Int Orthop 33:104310472009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Christensen FBHansen ESEiskjaer SPHøy KHelmig PNeumann P: Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:267426832002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Cowley DE: Prostheses for primary total hip replacement. A critical appraisal of the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 11:7707781995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Cunningham BWKotani YMcNulty PSCappuccino AMcAfee PC: The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:265526631997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Dai LYJia LSYuan WNi BZhu HB: Direct repair of defect in lumbar spondylolysis and mild isthmic spondylolisthesis by bone grafting, with or without facet joint fusion. Eur Spine J 10:78832001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Dantas FLPrandini MNFerreira MA: Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in adult spondylolisthesis. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 65:3B7647702007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Dehoux EFourati EMadi KReddy BSegal P: Posterolateral versus interbody fusion in isthmic spondylolisthesis: functional results in 52 cases with a minimum follow-up of 6 years. Acta Orthop Belg 70:5785822004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Deyo RA: Back surgery—who needs it?. N Engl J Med 356:223922432007

  • 12

    Deyo RANachemson AMirza SK: Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 350:7227262004

  • 13

    DiPaola CPMolinari RW: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:1301392008

  • 14

    Egger MEbrahim SSmith GD: Where now for meta-analysis?. Int J Epidemiol 31:152002

  • 15

    Ekman PMöller HTullberg TNeumann PHedlund R: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:217821832007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Enker PSteffee AD: Interbody fusion and instrumentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 300:901011994

  • 17

    Fan SHu ZZhao FZhao XHuang YFang X: Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 19:3163242010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Fischgrund JSMackay MHerkowitz HNBrower RMontgomery DMKurz LT: 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:280728121997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Fraser RD: Interbody, posterior, and combined lumbar fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:24 Suppl167S177S1995

  • 20

    Fritzell PHägg ONordwall A: Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J 12:1781892003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Fritzell PHägg OWessberg PNordwall A: Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:113111412002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Fritzell PHägg OWessberg PNordwall A: 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:252125342001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Furlan ADPennick VBombardier Cvan Tulder M: Editorial Board Cochrane Back Review Group: 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:192919412009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Guigui PLambert PLassale BDeburge A: [Long-term outcome at adjacent levels of lumbar arthrodesis.]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 83:6856961997. (Fr)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Ha KYNa KHShin JHKim KW: Comparison of posterolateral fusion with and without additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:2292342008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Harrop JSYoussef JAMaltenfort MVorwald PJabbour PBono CM: Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:170117072008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Herkowitz HNKurz LT: Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:8028081991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Higgins JPThompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:153915582002

  • 29

    Higgins JPThompson SGDeeks JJAltman DG: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:5575602003

  • 30

    Inamdar DNAlagappan MShyam LDevadoss SDevadoss A: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus intertransverse fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 14:21262006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Jacobs WCVreeling ADe Kleuver M: Fusion for low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15:3914022006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Jiya TSmit TDeddens JMullender M: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using nonresorbable poly-ether-ether-ketone versus resorbable poly-L-lactide-co-D,L-lactide fusion devices: a prospective, randomized study to assess fusion and clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2332372009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Jutte PCCastelein RM: Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations. Eur Spine J 11:5945982002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Kanayama MTogawa DHashimoto TShigenobu KOha F: Motion-preserving surgery can prevent early breakdown of adjacent segments: comparison of posterior dynamic stabilization with spinal fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:4634672009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Kim KTLee SHLee YHBae SCSuk KS: Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:135113582006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    La Rosa GCacciola FConti ACardali SLa Torre DGambadauro NM: Posterior fusion compared with posterior interbody fusion in segmental spinal fixation for adult spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus 10:4E92001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    La Rosa GConti ACacciola FCardali SLa Torre DGambadauro NM: Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion?. J Neurosurg 99:2 Suppl1431502003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Laird NMMosteller F: Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 6:5301990

  • 39

    Lauber SSchulte TLLiljenqvist UHalm HHackenberg L: Clinical and radiologic 2–4-year results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:169316982006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Lee CKVessa PLee JK: Chronic disabling low back pain syndrome caused by internal disc derangements. The results of disc excision and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:3563611995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Lidar ZBeaumont ALifshutz JMaiman DJ: Clinical and radiological relationship between posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral lumbar fusion. Surg Neurol 64:3033082005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    Lin PM: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique: complications and pitfalls. Clin Orthop Relat Res 193:901021985

  • 43

    Ma YGuo LCai X: [Posterior interbody fusion or posterolateral fusion for discogenic low back pain.]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 81:125312552001. (Chinese)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Madan SBoeree NR: Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:153615422002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    Madan SSHarley JMBoeree NR: Circumferential and posterolateral fusion for lumbar disc disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res 409:1141232003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Miyakoshi NAbe EShimada YOkuyama KSuzuki TSato K: Outcome of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and postoperative intervertebral disc degeneration adjacent to the fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:183718422000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47

    Mochida JSuzuki KChiba M: How to stabilize a single level lesion of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 368:1261341999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48

    Moher DCook DJEastwood SOlkin IRennie DStroup DF: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354:189619001999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49

    Nakai SYoshizawa HKobayashi S: Long-term follow-up study of posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord 12:2932991999

  • 50

    Park PGarton HJGala VCHoff JTMcGillicuddy JE: Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:193819442004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51

    Pichelmann MALenke LGBridwell KHGood CRO'Leary PTSides BA: Revision rates following primary adult spinal deformity surgery: six hundred forty-three consecutive patients followed-up to twenty-two years postoperative. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:2192262010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52

    Putzier MStrube PFunk JFGross CMönig HJPerka C: Allogenic versus autologous cancellous bone in lumbar segmental spondylodesis: a randomized prospective study. Eur Spine J 18:6876952009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53

    Raizman NMO'Brien JRPoehling-Monaghan KLYu WD: Pseudarthrosis of the spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:4945032009

  • 54

    Rompe JDEysel PHopf C: Clinical efficacy of pedicle instrumentation and posterolateral fusion in the symptomatic degenerative lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 4:2312371995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55

    Sampson MBarrowman NJMoher DKlassen TPPham BPlatt R: Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline?. J Clin Epidemiol 56:9439552003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 56

    Schlegel KFPon A: The biomechanics of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 193:1151191985

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 57

    Smith JADeviren VBerven SKleinstueck FBradford DS: Clinical outcome of trans-sacral interbody fusion after partial reduction for high-grade l5-s1 spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:222722342001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58

    Stroup DFBerlin JAMorton SCOlkin IWilliamson GDRennie D: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:200820122000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59

    Sudo HOda IAbumi KIto MKotani YHojo Y: In vitro biomechanical effects of reconstruction on adjacent motion segment: comparison of aligned/kyphotic posterolateral fusion with aligned posterior lumbar interbody fusion/posterolateral fusion. J Neurosurg 99:2 Suppl2212282003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60

    Sudo HOda IAbumi KIto MKotani YMinami A: Biomechanical study on the effect of five different lumbar reconstruction techniques on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and lamina strain. J Neurosurg Spine 5:1501552006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 61

    Suk SILee CKKim WJLee JHCho KJKim HG: Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2102201997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62

    Thomsen KChristensen FBEiskjaer SPHansen ESFruensgaard SBünger CE: 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:281328221997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 63

    Vamvanij VFredrickson BEThorpe JMStadnick MEYuan HA: Surgical treatment of internal disc disruption: an outcome study of four fusion techniques. J Spinal Disord 11:3753821998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 64

    van Tulder MFurlan ABombardier CBouter L: Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:129012992003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 65

    Vlaanderen JVermeulen RHeederik DKromhout H: ECNIS Integrated Risk Assessment Group European Union Network of Excellence: Guidelines to evaluate human observational studies for quantitative risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 116:170017052008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 66

    Wang JCMummaneni PVHaid RW: Current treatment strategies for the painful lumbar motion segment: posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:16 SupplS33S432005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 67

    Weatherley CRPrickett CFO'Brien JP: Discogenic pain persisting despite solid posterior fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br 68:1421431986

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68

    Wetzel FTBrustein MPhillips FMTrott S: Hardware failure in an unconstrained lumbar pedicle screw system. A 2-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:113811431999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69

    Yashiro KHomma THokari YKatsumi YOkumura HHirano A: The Steffee variable screw placement system using different methods of bone grafting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16:132913341991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 70

    Yu CHWang CTChen PQ: Instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in adult spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:303430432008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71

    Zdeblick TA: A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:9839911993

  • 72

    Zhao QHTian JWWang LDong SHWu ZKWang Z: [Posterior fusion versus posterior interbody fusion in segmental spinal fixation for aged spondylolisthesis.]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 89:177917822009. (Chinese)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Cited By
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 338 338 86
Full Text Views 133 128 2
PDF Downloads 149 124 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar