Comparative analysis of three-year outcomes of different interbody fusion approaches for grade I-II lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis
- 1Department of Orthopaedics, Linping Campus, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou City, China
- 2Department of Spinal Surgery, Jiefang Road Campus, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou City, China
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare surgical characteristics, complications, clinical and radiographic outcomes among patients undergoing unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-PLIF), percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF), and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for grade I-II lumbar spondylolisthesis (LS) combined with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
Methods: From July 2019 to May 2022, patients with grade I-II LS combined with LSS were retrospectively included and grouped into the UBE-PLIF, PE-TLIF, and OLIF groups based on the surgical procedure. Baseline characteristics, surgical data, and complications were collected during hospitalization and follow-up. Clinical outcomes, including the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for low back pain (VAS-back) and leg pain (VAS-leg), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, were assessed preoperatively and at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes, such as intervertebral disc height (IDH), slip percentage, lumbar lordosis angle, and fusion rate, were evaluated at the same timepoints.
Results: The PE-TLIF and OLIF groups required longer operative times and greater blood loss than the UBE-PLIF group, with the OLIF group exhibiting the largest incision length, blood loss, and drainage volume (P < 0.05). After the 36-month follow-up, the UBE-PLIF group demonstrated significantly better VAS-leg scores at 24 and 36 months, as well as superior ODI and JOA scores at 36 months, compared to the other two groups (P < 0.05). Among radiographic outcomes, significant differences were found only in the interbody fusion rate at 6 months and IDH at 36 months (P < 0.05), with no differences in other parameters at the remaining timepoints. The total complication rates for UBE-PLIF, PE-TLIF, and OLIF were 13.53%, 18.94%, and 16.79%, respectively, with no significant intergroup differences (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: UBE-PLIF, PE-TLIF, and OLIF demonstrate comparable safety and efficacy. UBE-PLIF is associated with less blood loss and modest advantages in selected late clinical outcomes, suggesting it is a viable alternative for grade I-II LS with LSS. Given the limitations of retrospective design, further validation through multicenter randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up is warranted.
Related
- A prospective comparative study of outcomes between zero-profile 3D-printed interbody cages and plate-augmented cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
- Comparative Two-Year Outcomes of Three Different Three-Piece Intraocular Lenses in Flanged Intrascleral Fixation
- Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Total Disc Replacement with a Viscoelastic Prosthesis for Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease in Young Adults: A Comparative Retrospective Cohort Study
- Comparative machine learning approaches to prognosticate clinical outcomes in oral and maxillofacial space infections: a retrospective analysis
- Comparative analysis of coronal balance with clinical correlation between degenerative and isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study
BibTeX
@article{luo2026comparative,
title = {{Comparative analysis of three-year outcomes of different interbody fusion approaches for grade I-II lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis}},
author = {Jian Luo and Li-Hua Shen and Teng-Fei Zhao and Chang-Shen Bao and Zhi-Chao Gao and Yong-Jun Meng and Guo-Fu Zheng},
journal = {Frontiers in Surgery},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fsurg.2026.1847229},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2026.1847229},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparative analysis of three-year outcomes of different interbody fusion approaches for grade I-II lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis
AU - Jian Luo
AU - Li-Hua Shen
AU - Teng-Fei Zhao
AU - Chang-Shen Bao
AU - Zhi-Chao Gao
AU - Yong-Jun Meng
AU - Guo-Fu Zheng
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/12
JO - Frontiers in Surgery
DO - 10.3389/fsurg.2026.1847229
UR - https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2026.1847229
AB - Objective: This study aimed to compare surgical characteristics, complications, clinical and radiographic outcomes among patients undergoing unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-PLIF), percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF), and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for grade I-II lumbar spondylolisthesis (LS) combined with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods: From July 2019 to May 2022, patients with grade I-II LS combined with LSS were retrospectively included and grouped into the UBE-PLIF, PE-TLIF, and OLIF groups based on the surgical procedure. Baseline characteristics, surgical data, and complications were collected during hospitalization and follow-up. Clinical outcomes, including the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for low back pain (VAS-back) and leg pain (VAS-leg), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, were assessed preoperatively and at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes, such as intervertebral disc height (IDH), slip percentage, lumbar lordosis angle, and fusion rate, were evaluated at the same timepoints. Results: The PE-TLIF and OLIF groups required longer operative times and greater blood loss than the UBE-PLIF group, with the OLIF group exhibiting the largest incision length, blood loss, and drainage volume (P < 0.05). After the 36-month follow-up, the UBE-PLIF group demonstrated significantly better VAS-leg scores at 24 and 36 months, as well as superior ODI and JOA scores at 36 months, compared to the other two groups (P < 0.05). Among radiographic outcomes, significant differences were found only in the interbody fusion rate at 6 months and IDH at 36 months (P < 0.05), with no differences in other parameters at the remaining timepoints. The total complication rates for UBE-PLIF, PE-TLIF, and OLIF were 13.53%, 18.94%, and 16.79%, respectively, with no significant intergroup differences (P > 0.05). Conclusion: UBE-PLIF, PE-TLIF, and OLIF demonstrate comparable safety and efficacy. UBE-PLIF is associated with less blood loss and modest advantages in selected late clinical outcomes, suggesting it is a viable alternative for grade I-II LS with LSS. Given the limitations of retrospective design, further validation through multicenter randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up is warranted.
SN - 2296-875X
ER -