Aim: Both posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) are the frequently-used techniques to treat lumbar spondylolithesis. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and effectiveness between these two methods. Materials and Methods: The multiple databases were used to search for the relevant studies, and full-text articles involved in the comparison between PLIF and PLF were reviewed. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted. Results: Finally, 11 relevant studies were eventually satisfied the included criteria. The meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant difference of the clinical outcome, fusion rate, complication rate and blood loss (RR = 1.07, 95%CI [0.97, 1.17], P = 0.16; RR = 0.84, 95%CI [0.49, 1.45], P = 0.54; RR = 1.07, 95%CI [0.95, 1.21], P = 0.25; SMD = 0.24, 95%CI [-0.50, 0.98], P = 0.52; respectively). No publication bias was observed in this study (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Both these two procedures provide excellent outcomes for patients with spondylolisthesis. There was no significant difference of clinical outcome, complication rate, fusion rate and blood loss between PLIF and PLF techniques.
Keywords: PLF; PLIF; lumbar spondylolithesis; meta-analysis.