International Journal of Research in Orthopaedics | May-June 2021 | Vol 7 | Issue 3 Page 544 International Journal of Research in Orthopaedics Singh H et al. Int J Res Orthop. 2021 May;7(3):544-550 http://www.ijoro.org Original Research Article A comparative study of functional outcome between posterior lumbar fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in spondylolisthesis Harpreet Singh, Dhruv Patel*, Sangam Tyagi, Krushna Saoji, Tilak Patel, Parth Patel INTRODUCTION Low back pain is the most common cause of work-related disability and one of the most common contributors to missed time at work. 1 Spondylolisthesis is derived from the Greek words spondyl (vertebra) and olisthesis (to slip). This most commonly describes the forward slippage of a cephalad vertebra on a caudal vertebra. 2 Two processes, dysplastic and traumatic can give rise to spondylolisthesis. These can occur simultaneously, but generally one precedes the other. 3 There are various treatment options available for spondylolisthesis. They are conservative, epidural steroid injections, only decompression, pars repair, PLF, PLIF, transforaminal interbody fusion and circumferential fusion. Conservative treatment for segmental instability is possible for patients with tolerable pain. 4 Surgery is indicated if symptoms are disabling and interfere with work, if the condition is progressive, or if there is a significant neurological deficit. 5 ABSTRACT Background: Spondylolisthesis is condition in which one vertebra slips over other vertebra. This study has been done to compare the functional outcome and complications of two techniques: posterior lumbar fusion (intertransverse fusion) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Methods: Total 20 patients with spondylolisthesis admitted in a tertiary care centre in Rajasthan were allotted alternatively in posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) group and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) group. In PLF, fusion was done by placing bone graft between transverse processes and around facets. In PLIF, fusion was bone by placing cage in between vertebral bodies. Results: 20 patients were included in our study with female predominance (65%). Mean age was 54.2 years (PLF=58.4 and PLIF=50.2). 70% patients have L4-L5 level spondylolisthesis. Average operative time was less in PLF group, which is statistically significant. Functional outcome was measured by using visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Japanese orthopedics association score (JOAS) at 3 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. There is a significant decrease between preoperative VAS and at 6 months, in both PLF and PLIF group. JOAS was significantly increased at 6 months in both PLF and PLIF group as compared to preoperative score. But difference in JOAS at 6 months is not significant between PLF and PLIF. Conclusions: Both PLF and PLIF are equally effective for spondylolisthesis. Both techniques have same satisfactory results. As PLIF is more invasive technique, more operative time and more complications are seen. Keywords: Spondylolisthesis, Posterior lumbar fusion, Posterior lumbar interbody fusion Department of Orthopaedics, Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India Received: 09 March 2021 Revised: 12 April 2021 Accepted: 13 April 2021 *Correspondence: Dr. Dhruv Patel, E-mail: dhruvpateld2408@gmail.com Copyright: © the author(s), publisher and licensee Medip Academy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20211608