Comparison between posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw fixation and anterior interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolytic spondylolisthesis.

K. S. Suk, C. H. Jeon, M. S. Park, seonghwan moon, N. H. Kim, H. M. Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There have been many reports regarding various operative methods for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. However, there have been no reports regarding the comparison between posterolateral fusion (PLF) with pedicle screw fixation (PSF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with PSF. The purpose of the current study was to compare the clinical outcomes of PLF with PSF and ALIF with PSF, and to help in the selection of treatment options. Fifty-six patients with spondylolytic spondylolisthesis who underwent PLF with PSF (group 1, 35 patients) or who underwent ALIF with PSF (group 2, 21 patients) were studied. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Demographic variables and disease state were similar for the two groups. We studied operating time, amount of blood loss, duration of hospital stay, clinical outcomes, complications, time at which fusion was complete, fusion rate, and radiological measurements. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the amount of blood loss, duration of hospital stay, back pain, radiating pain, fusion rate, or complication rate. However, in group 2, the operation time and the time at which fusion became complete was longer, and in group 1 there was significant radiological reduction loss. In conclusion, PLF with PSF was just as effective as ALIF with PSF in terms of clinical outcomes, but ALIF with PSF was superior to PLF with PSF in terms of the prevention of reduction loss. Anterior support would be helpful for preventing reduction loss in cases of spondylolytic spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)316-323
Number of pages8
JournalYonsei Medical Journal
Volume42
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2001 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Spondylolisthesis
Length of Stay
Pedicle Screws
Back Pain
Spine
Demography

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{c6a33119d0704998840e100cefecb02d,
title = "Comparison between posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw fixation and anterior interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolytic spondylolisthesis.",
abstract = "There have been many reports regarding various operative methods for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. However, there have been no reports regarding the comparison between posterolateral fusion (PLF) with pedicle screw fixation (PSF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with PSF. The purpose of the current study was to compare the clinical outcomes of PLF with PSF and ALIF with PSF, and to help in the selection of treatment options. Fifty-six patients with spondylolytic spondylolisthesis who underwent PLF with PSF (group 1, 35 patients) or who underwent ALIF with PSF (group 2, 21 patients) were studied. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Demographic variables and disease state were similar for the two groups. We studied operating time, amount of blood loss, duration of hospital stay, clinical outcomes, complications, time at which fusion was complete, fusion rate, and radiological measurements. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the amount of blood loss, duration of hospital stay, back pain, radiating pain, fusion rate, or complication rate. However, in group 2, the operation time and the time at which fusion became complete was longer, and in group 1 there was significant radiological reduction loss. In conclusion, PLF with PSF was just as effective as ALIF with PSF in terms of clinical outcomes, but ALIF with PSF was superior to PLF with PSF in terms of the prevention of reduction loss. Anterior support would be helpful for preventing reduction loss in cases of spondylolytic spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine.",
author = "Suk, {K. S.} and Jeon, {C. H.} and Park, {M. S.} and seonghwan moon and Kim, {N. H.} and Lee, {H. M.}",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3349/ymj.2001.42.3.316",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "316--323",
journal = "Yonsei Medical Journal",
issn = "0513-5796",
publisher = "Yonsei University College of Medicine",
number = "3",

}

Comparison between posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw fixation and anterior interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. / Suk, K. S.; Jeon, C. H.; Park, M. S.; moon, seonghwan; Kim, N. H.; Lee, H. M.

In: Yonsei Medical Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, 01.01.2001, p. 316-323.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison between posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw fixation and anterior interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolytic spondylolisthesis.

AU - Suk, K. S.

AU - Jeon, C. H.

AU - Park, M. S.

AU - moon, seonghwan

AU - Kim, N. H.

AU - Lee, H. M.

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - There have been many reports regarding various operative methods for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. However, there have been no reports regarding the comparison between posterolateral fusion (PLF) with pedicle screw fixation (PSF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with PSF. The purpose of the current study was to compare the clinical outcomes of PLF with PSF and ALIF with PSF, and to help in the selection of treatment options. Fifty-six patients with spondylolytic spondylolisthesis who underwent PLF with PSF (group 1, 35 patients) or who underwent ALIF with PSF (group 2, 21 patients) were studied. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Demographic variables and disease state were similar for the two groups. We studied operating time, amount of blood loss, duration of hospital stay, clinical outcomes, complications, time at which fusion was complete, fusion rate, and radiological measurements. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the amount of blood loss, duration of hospital stay, back pain, radiating pain, fusion rate, or complication rate. However, in group 2, the operation time and the time at which fusion became complete was longer, and in group 1 there was significant radiological reduction loss. In conclusion, PLF with PSF was just as effective as ALIF with PSF in terms of clinical outcomes, but ALIF with PSF was superior to PLF with PSF in terms of the prevention of reduction loss. Anterior support would be helpful for preventing reduction loss in cases of spondylolytic spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine.

AB - There have been many reports regarding various operative methods for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. However, there have been no reports regarding the comparison between posterolateral fusion (PLF) with pedicle screw fixation (PSF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with PSF. The purpose of the current study was to compare the clinical outcomes of PLF with PSF and ALIF with PSF, and to help in the selection of treatment options. Fifty-six patients with spondylolytic spondylolisthesis who underwent PLF with PSF (group 1, 35 patients) or who underwent ALIF with PSF (group 2, 21 patients) were studied. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Demographic variables and disease state were similar for the two groups. We studied operating time, amount of blood loss, duration of hospital stay, clinical outcomes, complications, time at which fusion was complete, fusion rate, and radiological measurements. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the amount of blood loss, duration of hospital stay, back pain, radiating pain, fusion rate, or complication rate. However, in group 2, the operation time and the time at which fusion became complete was longer, and in group 1 there was significant radiological reduction loss. In conclusion, PLF with PSF was just as effective as ALIF with PSF in terms of clinical outcomes, but ALIF with PSF was superior to PLF with PSF in terms of the prevention of reduction loss. Anterior support would be helpful for preventing reduction loss in cases of spondylolytic spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035377483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035377483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3349/ymj.2001.42.3.316

DO - 10.3349/ymj.2001.42.3.316

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 316

EP - 323

JO - Yonsei Medical Journal

JF - Yonsei Medical Journal

SN - 0513-5796

IS - 3

ER -