Midline Lumbar Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Involving L5-S1 For Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND

A retrospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midline lumbar fusion (MIDLF) for lumbosacral fusion compared to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

METHODS

Patients who had undergone posterior lumbosacral fusion surgery were divided into a MIDLF group (n = 37) and a PLIF group (n = 42). The follow-up time was at least 12 months. The operation data, recovery condition, complications, clinical outcomes, and status of implants and fusion were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The MIDLF group experienced significantly less blood loss, lower postoperative creatine kinase levels and total drainage volume, earlier time to ambulation, and less hospital stay times after surgery compared to the PLIF group (P < 0.05). The mean postoperative back pain visual analog scale scores in the MIDLF group were significantly lower than the PLIF group (P < 0.05). The improvement in Oswestry Disability Index scores during 3-month follow-up displayed a significant difference between the 2 groups (P < 0.05). The fusion rate tended to be higher in the MIDLF group; however, the difference was not significant (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in respect to screw loosening and cage subsidence rate. There were 2 cases of complications both occurring in the PLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

MIDLF is safe and effective for lumbosacral fusion and in line with the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery.