Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 7, 2026
Multilevel Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease with Instability
Published on: July 25, 2025
Posterolateral Versus Posterior Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
Jennifer C Urquhart1,2, Nabeel Alnaghmoosh2, Kevin R Gurr1,2,3
1Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University.
Study Design:
This was a retrospective study of 2 different fusion techniques for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.
Objective:
To determine whether posterior lumbar interbody fusion (IF) is associated with improved patient-rated satisfaction and functional outcome when compared with posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Summary Of Background Data:
IF and PLF are widely used surgical approaches in the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Numerous studies have compared IF and PLF techniques, but inconsistent results, heterogeneous cohorts, and conflicting scientific evidence have made it difficult to reach a consensus on the optimal fusion technique.
Materials And Methods:
A consecutive cohort of 87 patients who had single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis and either PLF or IF were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Short Form-36 physical and mental component score, Oswestry Disability Index, back and leg pain, and complication rate were assessed to 24 months postoperatively. Patient characteristics, clinical outcome, and complications were compared between groups.
Results:
Of the 87 patients identified, 29 patients (33%) had PLF and 58 patients (67%) had IF. Patient follow-up was ≥85%. Foraminal stenosis (PLF, 13.8% vs. IF, 34.5%; P=0.046) was more common among the participants in the IF group. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were not different between groups (P>0.05). The reoperation rate was 3.4% in the PLF group and 10.3% in the IF group (P=0.416). Patients in the PLF group experienced similar gains in improvement in all outcome measures as those in the IF group (P>0.05). Four patients in the IF group and 3 in the PLF group were lacking evidence of radiographic fusion. These patients did have increased moderate back pain compared with patients demonstrating radiographic fusion but did not differ in any other postoperative outcomes measures.
Conclusions:
Type of fusion, IF or PLF, does not affect patient outcome or postoperative complication rates.
Level Of Evidence:
Level IV.
Related Concept Videos
02:45Nuclear Fusion
A helium nucleus has a mass that is 0.7% less than that of four hydrogen nuclei; this lost mass is converted into energy during the fusion. This reaction produces about...
01:24Tagging and Fusion Proteins
01:43SNAREs and Membrane Fusion
SNAREs exist in pairs that symmetrically interact and catalyze the fusion of the lipid bilayers in vesicle and target organelle. v-SNARE in the vesicle membrane are single polypeptide chains that bind to a complementary t-SNARE, composed of 2...
01:14Cranial Bones: Superior and Posterior View
The frontal bone is the single bone that forms the forehead. At its anterior midline, between the eyebrows, there is a slight depression called the glabella. The frontal bone also forms the supraorbital margin of the orbit. Near the middle of this margin is the supraorbital foramen, the opening that provides passage for a sensory nerve to the forehead. The frontal bone is thickened just above each supraorbital margin,...
01:26Fusion of Secretory Vesicles with the Plasma Membrane
In 1993, Jim Rothman proposed that the antiparallel pairing of vesicular and transmembrane SNAREs, or...
02:39Phase Transitions: Melting and Freezing