Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background Context: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are both frequently used as a surgical treatment for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Because of the unilateral transforaminal route to the intervertebral space used in TLIF, as opposed to the bilateral route used in PLIF, TLIF could be associated with fewer complications, shorter duration of surgery, and less blood loss, whereas the effectiveness of both techniques on back or leg pain is equal.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of both TLIF and PLIF in reducing disability, and to compare the intra- and postoperative complications of both techniques in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Study Design/setting: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were carried out.

Methods: We conducted a Medline (using PubMed), Embase (using Ovid), Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination search for studies reporting TLIF, PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis and disability, pain, complications, duration of surgery, and estimated blood loss. A meta-analysis was performed to compute pooled estimates of the differences between TLIF and PLIF. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group.

Results: A total of 192 studies were identified; nine studies were included (one randomized controlled trial and eight case series), including 990 patients (450 TLIF and 540 PLIF). The pooled mean difference in postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores between TLIF and PLIF was -3.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] -4.72 to -2.20, p≤.001). The pooled mean difference in the postoperative VAS scores was -0.05 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.09, p=.480). The overall complication rate was 8.7% (range 0%-25%) for TLIF and 17.0% (range 4.7-28.8%) for PLIF; the pooled odds ratio was 0.47 (95% CI 0.28-0.81, p=.006). The average duration of surgery was 169 minutes for TLIF and 190 minutes for PLIF (mean difference -20.1, 95% CI -33.5 to -6.6, p=.003). The estimated blood loss was 350 mL for TLIF and 418 mL for PLIF (mean difference -43.9 mL, 95% CI -71.2 to -16.6, p=.002).

Conclusions: TLIF has advantages over PLIF in the complication rate, blood loss, and operation duration. The clinical outcome is similar, with a slightly lower postoperative ODI score for TLIF.