Abstract
Abstract
Background
To observe the clinical efficacy of an anterior single rob-screw fixation (ASRSF) combined with the oblique lumbar intervertebral fusion (OLIF) approach compared with a posterior percutaneous screw fixation (PPSF) combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Method
This is a retrospective case–control study. Patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) treated with either ASRSF combined with OLIF or PPSF combined with OLIF from January 2016 to January 2018 were enrolled in this study. None of the patients had posterior decompression. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) were used for clinical efficacy assessment. The pre- and post-operational disc height, height of foramen, subsidence, and migration of cages, fusion rate and surgery-related complications were compared between the two groups.
Results
Fifty-three patients were included in this single-center study. According to the fixation methods, patients were divided into the ASRSF group (group A, 25 cases) and the PPSF group (group B, 28 cases). There was no statistical difference in surgery-related complications between groups. There was a significant difference in the VAS score at one-week post-surgery (2.3 ± 0.5 vs. 3.5 ± 0.4, P = 0.01), and three months post-operation (2.2 ± 0.3 vs. 3.0 ± 0.3, P = 0.01). Comparison of post-operative imaging data showed that there was a significant difference in the height of the foramen between groups at three months post-surgery(18.1 ± 2.3 mm vs. 16.9 ± 1.9 mm, P = 0.04). At 24 months post-surgery, the ODI was 12.65 ± 3.6 in group A and 19.1 ± 3.4 in group B (P = 0.01). Twelve months after surgery, the fusion rate in group A at 72.0% and 78.6% in group B was not statistically significant (P = 0.75). Fusion was identified in all patients at 24 months post-surgery.
Conclusion
When compared to PPSF, ASRSF combined with OLIF for DLS can reduce post-operative low back pain in the initial stages, maintain the height of the foramen and improve the performance of lumbar function.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery
Reference22 articles.
1. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: lumbar fusion for intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2(6):670–2.
2. Elgawhary S, Khalid M, Agamy SA. Can sacropelvic fixation improve outcome of long-segment lumbar spine fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease? Egypt Spine J. 2020;33(1):36–44.
3. Formica M, Vallerga D, Zanirato A, et al. Fusion rate, and influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody arthrodesis for degenerative spine diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Musculoskelet Surg. 2020;104(1):1–15.
4. Ravindra VM, Senglaub SS, Rattani A, et al. Degenerative lumbar spine disease: estimating global incidence and worldwide volume. Global Spine J. 2018;8(8):784–94.
5. Ding WY, Yang DL, Cao LZ, et al. Intervertebral disc degeneration and bone density in degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a comparative study between patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis and patients with lumbar stenosis. Chin Med J. 2011;124(23):3875–8.