Sistema Ortopédico e Muscular: Pesquisa Atual
Acesso livre
ISSN: 2161-0533
ISSN: 2161-0533
Gazi Shahinur Akter, Md Zakirul Hasan, Dur-E-Shehvar Sana, Saiful Islam Nayem, Md Shoriful Islam and Mohammad Abdul Mazid*
Purpose: Spondylolisthesis is a common cause of surgery in patients with lower back pain. Although interbody fusion and circumferential fusion are a relatively common surgical method for the treatment of spondylolisthesis, we retrospectively compared surgical reduction or fusion in situ with simple lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) and circumferential fusion (PLF+TLIF/PLIF) for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis in terms of surgical invasiveness, clinical and radiographical outcomes, and complications.
Methods: From January 2013 to June 2015, 84 adult patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent surgical treatment in our department were randomized to simple lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) group (group 1, n=45) and circumferential fusion (PLF+TLIF/PLIF) group (group 2, n=39), and followed up for average 28.6 months (range 24–54 months). All patients of both groups had low back pain as their predominant symptom, with varying degree of radicular pain and neurological symptoms. The data collected retrospectively for analysis were: duration of symptoms, levels of fusion, revision surgery, clinical and radiographic results after surgery, and complications.
Results: All the 84 patients compared in two surgical approaches for IS were included in this retrospective studies. In our analysis, for the surgical management of isthmic spondylolisthesis, we indicated that both approaches lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) and circumferential fusion (PLF+TLIF/PLIF) have equal significant, greater fusion rates with successful clinical outcomes.
Conclusion: Our clinical experience along with statistic findings indicates that in conclusion, there was no significant difference was found between simple interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) compared to circumferential fusion (PLF+TLIF/PLIF). Moreover, both techniques led to similar surgical outcomes and complication during follow-up. Thus, these results suggest that both procedures are equally effective for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis.