Yu Feng1, Liang Chen2, Yong Gu1, Zhi-Ming Zhang1, Hui-Lin Yang1, Tian-Si Tang1. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi St, Soochow, Jiangsu Province, China. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi St, Soochow, Jiangsu Province, China. Electronic address: sixiu_01@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: More and more orthopedic surgeons recognize the importance of the sagittal balance of the spine. PURPOSE: To analyze the pre- and postoperative sagittal and deformity parameters of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis and evaluate the effect of posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) on spinopelvic sagittal balance. STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized controlled prospective study with a historical control. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 99 patients with low-grade L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis were treated surgically; 36 patients (mean age, 60.2±5.2 years) received the PLF operation, and 63 patients (mean age, 57.1±6.9 years) chose the PLIF operation. The healthy control group was composed of 60 volunteers (mean age, 44.5±8.4 years). OUTCOME MEASURES: The pre- and postoperative spinopelvic and deformity parameters. METHODS: All patients had radiographs that allowed measurement of spinopelvic parameters before and after the operation. All the spinopelvic and deformity parameters were measured. Two radiologists measured the parameters with the Cobb method. RESULTS: All of the preoperative spinopelvic parameters showed no difference between the PLIF and PLF groups in this study (p>.05). In both of the operation groups, the preoperative pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope, lumbar lordosis (LL), and L5 incidence (L5I) were significantly higher than in the control group (p<.01); the height of the intervertebral disc (HOD) was significantly lower than the controls. There were no significant differences in PT among PLIF, PLF, and control groups after the operation (p>.05). LL increased in the PLIF group and decreased in the PLF group. The slip degree (SD) and L5I were restored significantly in both groups. The HOD of the PLIF group increased 5.04 mm, the postoperative HOD of the PLF group had no significant change. In both PLIF and PLF groups, the correction of SD was correlated with the change of LL (r=-0.398, p=.007; r=0.365, p=.022). The restoration of HOD in the PLIF group correlated with the change of LL (r=0.334, p=.011). No significant differences could be found between the short-term clinical outcomes of the PLF and PLIF. CONCLUSION: Either PLF or PLIF would lead a great change in spinopelvic parameters and deformity parameters. The decrease of PT may be an important role for the short-term surgical outcome. The PLIF could increase the LL and form a more reasonable sagittal alignment. From the point of the sagittal spinopelvic balance, the PLIF may be better than the PLF for patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: More and more orthopedic surgeons recognize the importance of the sagittal balance of the spine. PURPOSE: To analyze the pre- and postoperative sagittal and deformity parameters of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis and evaluate the effect of posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) on spinopelvic sagittal balance. STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized controlled prospective study with a historical control. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 99 patients with low-grade L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis were treated surgically; 36 patients (mean age, 60.2±5.2 years) received the PLF operation, and 63 patients (mean age, 57.1±6.9 years) chose the PLIF operation. The healthy control group was composed of 60 volunteers (mean age, 44.5±8.4 years). OUTCOME MEASURES: The pre- and postoperative spinopelvic and deformity parameters. METHODS: All patients had radiographs that allowed measurement of spinopelvic parameters before and after the operation. All the spinopelvic and deformity parameters were measured. Two radiologists measured the parameters with the Cobb method. RESULTS: All of the preoperative spinopelvic parameters showed no difference between the PLIF and PLF groups in this study (p>.05). In both of the operation groups, the preoperative pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope, lumbar lordosis (LL), and L5 incidence (L5I) were significantly higher than in the control group (p<.01); the height of the intervertebral disc (HOD) was significantly lower than the controls. There were no significant differences in PT among PLIF, PLF, and control groups after the operation (p>.05). LL increased in the PLIF group and decreased in the PLF group. The slip degree (SD) and L5I were restored significantly in both groups. The HOD of the PLIF group increased 5.04 mm, the postoperative HOD of the PLF group had no significant change. In both PLIF and PLF groups, the correction of SD was correlated with the change of LL (r=-0.398, p=.007; r=0.365, p=.022). The restoration of HOD in the PLIF group correlated with the change of LL (r=0.334, p=.011). No significant differences could be found between the short-term clinical outcomes of the PLF and PLIF. CONCLUSION: Either PLF or PLIF would lead a great change in spinopelvic parameters and deformity parameters. The decrease of PT may be an important role for the short-term surgical outcome. The PLIF could increase the LL and form a more reasonable sagittal alignment. From the point of the sagittal spinopelvic balance, the PLIF may be better than the PLF for patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis.