title: [Comparative study on two different methods of lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of spondylolisthesis].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the clinical outcome of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with pedicle screw fixation on the treatment of spondylolisthesis.
  
  
  METHODS
  One hundred and twenty patients with spondylolisthesis who were managed in our department were retrospectively evaluated. They were categorized into TLIF group and PLIF group according to the surgical methods, with 60 cases in each group. The slippage rate, the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen were measured in each patient before and after operation and were compared between the two groups correspondingly. The interbody fusion rate, JOA score and complications after operation were also determined.
  
  
  RESULTS
  All the 120 patients were followed up for an average of 23 months (range, 16 to 35 months). Interbody bony fusion was achieved in every case and cage excursion or subsidence occurred in not any case. JOA score was rated as good or excellent in 83.3% of the TLIF cases and in 81.7% of the PLIF cases. There were no difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperative slippage rate was significantly less than preoperative ones in both groups (P < 0.01). No difference in lost of reduction at the final follow-up was found between TLIF and PLIF groups (P > 0.05). Significant increases in the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen after operation were approved in both groups (P < 0.01), but no difference in these increases was confirmed between the two groups (P > 0.05). The lost of the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen at the final follow-up were also similar between the two groups (P > 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  TLIF and PLIF are good methods for the treatment of spondylolisthesis, both leading to satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, TLIF is relatively safer owing to its unilateral approach for interbody fusion.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedics, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical College, Guangzhou 510150, China. yandenglu@163.com
authors.forename: Deng-Lu
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Yan
authors.forename: Jian
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: Liang-Bin
authors.initials: LB
authors.lastname: Gao
authors.forename: C L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Soo
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016025:Bone Transplantation / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013123:Spinal Fusion / Q000379:methods*; D013169:Spondylolysis / Q000601:surgery*; D016896:Treatment Outcome