Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus intertransverse fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE: To compare 2 methods of fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and intertransverse fusion (ITF). METHODS: 20 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis were randomly allocated to one of 2 groups: decompression, posterior instrumentation, and PLIF (n=10) or decompression, posterior instrumentation, and ITF (n=10). The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire was used for clinical assessment. Radiography was performed preoperatively and postoperatively to assess the reduction of spondylolisthesis or slip. RESULTS: In the PLIF and ITF groups, 87.5% and 100% had a satisfactory clinical result, and 48% and 39% had reduced spondylolisthesis, respectively. Both had a fusion rate of 100%. PLIF showed better reduction of spondylolisthesis, although ITF achieved a better subjective and clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: Morbidity and complications are much higher following PLIF than ITF. ITF is recommended because of the simplicity of the procedure, lower complication rate, and good clinical and radiological results.