Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Surgery
Published in: BMC Surgery 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Leg Pain | Research

Comparison between modified facet joint fusion and posterolateral fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study

Authors: Zhimin Li, Zheng Li, Xin Chen, Xiao Han, Kuan Li, Shugang Li

Published in: BMC Surgery | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the safety and effectiveness of modified facet joint fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases and compare them with those of posterolateral fusion.

Methods

A total of 77 adult patients with lumbar degenerative disease diagnosed from January 2017 to February 2019 were considered for the present retrospective, nonrandomized, and controlled study. The patients were divided into two groups according to the fusion technique used during the surgery: the posterolateral fusion (PLF) group (n = 42) and the modified facet joint fusion (MFF) group (n = 35). The fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for back pain and leg pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, length of hospital stay, length of operation, intraoperative blood loss, cost of hospitalization, complications and reoperations were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

All patients underwent a successful surgery, and all were followed up. No significant differences were found in age, sex, BMI, length of hospital stay, length of operation or cost of hospitalization. There were no significant differences in the preoperative or postoperative ODI or in the VAS, JOA, and EQ-5D scores between the MFF and PLF groups. However, the fusion rate of MFF group was higher than that of the PLF group (P < 0.05). What’s more, the MFF group had less intraoperative blood loss than the PLF group (P < 0.05). Complications related to iatrogenic nerve injury, vascular injury, epidural hematoma, intravertebral infection, and internal fixation did not occur in either group. None of the patients required reoperation.

Conclusions

Modified facet joint fusion is safe and efficient in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. The fusion rate of MFF was higher than PLF. The intraoperative blood loss of MFF was less than that of PLF. In addition, the therapeutic effect of MFF was not worse than that of PLF. Therefore, the MFF technique can be promoted in clinical treatment.
Literature
1.
Al Barbarawi MM, Audat ZM, Allouh MZ. Analytical comparison study of the clinical and radiological outcome of spine fixation using posterolateral, posterior lumber interbody and transforaminal lumber interbody spinal fixation techniques to treat lumber spine degenerative disc disease[J]. Scoliosis. 2015;10:17.CrossRef
2.
Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL, Ditkoff JS. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis[J]. Spine. 2004;29(7):726–33.CrossRef
3.
Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Yoshimura Y, Misawa H. Union versus nonunion after posterolateral lumbar fusion: a comparison of long-term surgical outcomes in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis[J]. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(8):1107–12.CrossRef
4.
Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Dimar JR 2nd, Howard JM, Bratcher KR, Carreon LY. Does fusion status correlate with patient outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion?[J]. Spine. 2011;36(5):404–9.CrossRef
5.
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR, Bronner KK, Fisher ES. United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003[J]. Spine. 2006;31(23):2707–14.CrossRef
6.
Luo J, Cao K, Yu T, Li L, Huang S, Gong M, et al. Comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis[J]. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(7):E915–22.CrossRef
7.
Liu XY, Qiu GX, Weng XS, Yu B, Wang YP. What is the optimum fusion technique for adult spondylolisthesis-PLIF or PLF or PLIF plus PLF? A meta-analysis from 17 comparative studies[J]. Spine. 2014;39(22):1887–98.CrossRef
8.
Shin HC, Yi S, Kim KN, Kim SH, Yoon DH. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion via a unilateral approach[J]. Yonsei Med J. 2006;47(3):319–25.CrossRef
9.
Liu J, Deng H, Long X, Chen X, Xu R, Liu Z. A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis[J]. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(5):1575–80.CrossRef
10.
Morris MT, Tarpada SP, Cho W. Bone graft materials for posterolateral fusion made simple: a systematic review[J]. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(8):1856–67.CrossRef
11.
Miyashita T, Ataka H, Kato K, Tanno T. Good clinical outcomes and fusion rate of facet fusion with a percutaneous pedicle screw system for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: minimally invasive evolution of posterolateral fusion[J]. Spine. 2015;40(9):E552–7.CrossRef
12.
Levin JM, Tanenbaum JE, Steinmetz MP, Mroz TE, Overley SC. Posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Spine J. 2018;18(6):1088–98.CrossRef
13.
Li FC, Chen QX, Chen WS, Xu K, Wu QH, Chen G. Posterolateral lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis[J]. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(9):1241–5.CrossRef
14.
Adogwa O, Parker SL, Davis BJ, Aaronson O, Devin C, Cheng JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis[J]. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(2):138–43.CrossRef
15.
Bydon M, Macki M, Abt NB, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, et al. The cost-effectiveness of interbody fusions versus posterolateral fusions in 137 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis[J]. Spine J. 2015;15(3):492–8.CrossRef
16.
Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults[J]. JAMA. 2010;303(13):1259–65.CrossRef
17.
Du Bois M, Szpalski M, Donceel P. A decade’s experience in lumbar spine surgery in Belgium: sickness fund beneficiaries, 2000–2009[J]. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(12):2693–703.CrossRef
18.
Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management: a prospective 10-year study[J]. Spine. 2000;25(11):1424–35.CrossRef
19.
Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, et al. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial[J]. Spine. 2007;32(1):1–8.CrossRef
20.
Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis[J]. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(8):794–810.CrossRef
21.
Park YK, Chung HS. Instrumented facet fusion for the degenerative lumbar disorders[J]. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1999;141(9):915–20.CrossRef
22.
Ahlmann E, Patzakis M, Roidis N, Shepherd L, Holtom P. Comparison of anterior and posterior iliac crest bone grafts in terms of harvest-site morbidity and functional outcomes[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(5):716–20.CrossRef
23.
Hoy K, Truong K, Andersen T, Bunger C. Addition of TLIF does not improve outcome over standard posterior instrumented fusion 5–10 years long-term Follow-up: results from a RCT[J]. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(3):658–65.CrossRef
24.
Ghasemi AA. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion In degenerative spondylolisthesis: an attempt to evaluate the superiority of one method over the other[J]. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;150:1–5.CrossRef
25.
Kuraishi S, Takahashi J, Mukaiyama K, Shimizu M, Ikegami S, Futatsugi T, et al. Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis[J]. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(1):143–52.CrossRef
26.
Norton RP, Bianco K, Klifto C, Errico TJ, Bendo JA. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: an analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample database[J]. Spine. 2015;40(15):1219–27.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison between modified facet joint fusion and posterolateral fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study
Authors
Zhimin Li
Zheng Li
Xin Chen
Xiao Han
Kuan Li
Shugang Li
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Surgery / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2482
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01468-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Surgery 1/2022 Go to the issue

Research

Advantages of ligating the rectum with gauze pad band in laparoscopic anterior resection of rectal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis

Research

Efficacy of anterior debridement and bone grafting with fusion using internal fixation combined with anti-tuberculosis chemotherapy in the treatment of subaxial cervical tuberculosis

Research

The clinical and prognostic factors for biliary neuroendocrine neoplasm: a study based on the SEER database

Research

Preoperative inflammatory markers as prognostic predictors after hepatocellular carcinoma resection: data from a western referral center

Research

Preoperative aspartate aminotransferase to albumin ratio correlates with tumor characteristics and predicts outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma patients after curative hepatectomy: a multicenter study

Research

Long-term outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors