Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison between Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique

Introduction: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis usually entails sacrificing one or both of the facet joints when approached posteriorly. The ‘facet preserving’ PLIF described by cloward carries an advantage of preserving bone stock, compared to the most widely used transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) technique. The aim of the study is to compare PLIF and TLIF techniques. Materials and Methods: We compared the complications, as well as the clinical and radiological outcomes of PLIF ( n = 25) and TLIF ( n = 50). Outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index, the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and the visual analogue score. Radiographs were repeated at 6 months. Perioperative outcomes such as blood loss (ml), operative time (minutes), length of stay in hospital (days) and the incidence of surgical complications were also assessed and recorded. The t -test was used for the analysis of continuous data with normal distribution, and the Mann–Whitney U -test for data with non-normal distribution. Results: The average follow-up time for the PLIF technique was 28 months compared to 25 months for the TLIF technique ( P = 0.52). Operative time was significantly lower in the PLIF technique ( P < 0.001). The complication rate ( P = 0.132), and clinical and radiological outcomes were comparable in both techniques. Conclusions: Both PLIF and TLIF techniques yield comparable results.