Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 19, 2025
C-arm-Free Simultaneous OLIF51 and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in a Single Lateral Position
Published on: September 16, 2022
Circumferential fusion with open versus percutaneous posterior fusion for lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis
Brian A Karamian1, William K Conaway1, Jennifer Z Mao1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, United States.
Study Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Objective:
To investigate the clinical and radiographic differences between patients who underwent anterior lumber interbody fusion (ALIF) with either open or percutaneous posterior fusion for lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.
Summary Of Background Data:
Circumferential fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis is commonly performed with superior clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and restoration of sagittal balance when compared to posterior fusion alone. The outcomes comparing traditional open versus percutaneous posterior fusion in this setting have not been fully evaluated.
Methods:
A retrospective review of patients who underwent ALIF with either traditional open or percutaneous posterior fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis between 2014 and 2019 was conducted. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between groups.
Results:
A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis, with 49 in the Open group and 30 in the Percutaneous group. No differences were found with regard to demographic factors between groups including sex, body mass index (BMI), diabetic status, and smoking status. The percutaneous group had less estimated blood loss (EBL, 69.2 mL) and shorter length of stay (3.06 days) compared to the open group (446 mL, p = 0.017; 3.98 days, p = 0.003). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in all clinical outcome measures after surgery (PCS-12, MCS-12, ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg scores). The percutaneous group achieved greater ∆VAS Back (Open = 3.55, Perc = 5.17; p = 0.045) and also had a significantly greater improvements in recovery ratio for VAS Back (Open: 0.43, Perc: 0.73; p = 0.037) and ODI (Open: 0.40, Perc = 0.67; p = 0.031). Regression analysis demonstrated percutaneous surgery to be significant predictor of superior improvement in VAS Back scores (β = 1.957, p = 0.027).
Conclusion:
ALIF with percutaneous posterior fusion affords greater improvement in back pain and disability when compared to ALIF with open posterior fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis.
Level Of Evidence:
III.
