Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleLumbar Spine

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, and Hybrid Surgery

Zhenbiao Zhu, Anwu Xuan, Cheng Xu, Chaofeng Wang, Qing He, Liang Tang and Dike Ruan
International Journal of Spine Surgery December 2024, 18 (6) 756-768; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8659
Zhenbiao Zhu
1 The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
2 Department of Orthopedics, Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
3 Department of Orthopedics, Central South University Xiangya School of Medicine Affiliated Haikou Hospital, Haikou, China
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anwu Xuan
2 Department of Orthopedics, Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
4 Department of Orthopedics, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, China
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cheng Xu
2 Department of Orthopedics, Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chaofeng Wang
5 Department of Orthopedics, Xi’an Honghui Hospital, Xi’an, China
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Qing He
2 Department of Orthopedics, Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Liang Tang
1 The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
2 Department of Orthopedics, Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dike Ruan
1 The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
2 Department of Orthopedics, Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ruandikengh@163.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Radiographic images of 2-level lumbar fusion. (A1 and A2) Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral x-ray images of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). (B1 and B2) Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral x-ray images of posterior lumbar fusion (PLF). (C1 and C2) Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral x-ray images of hybrid surgery combining distal PLIF with proximal PLF.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Changes in patient-reported scores and radiographic parameters at different follow-up time points (3, 6, 12, 36, and 60 months) after surgery. Abbreviations: JOA = Japanese Orthopedic Association; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PLF = posterior lumbar fusion; PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion; SF-36 = 36-item Short Form Health Survey; VAS = visual analog scale.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Imaging of adjacent segment degeneration development in hybrid surgery 54 months postoperatively. (A and B) Anteroposterior and lateral x-ray images of hybrid surgery at L3–L5. (C–E) Computed tomography images showing disc protrusion and spinal stenosis at the adjacent levels L5–S1.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Imaging of posterior cage migration and subsidence. (A) Lateral x-ray of a patient showing proper cage position at L3/4, 3 months after surgery. (B) Mild subsidence of the L3/4 cage observed at 36 months postoperatively. (C) Significant subsidence of the L3/4 cage observed at 60 months postoperatively.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    The inclusion and exclusion criteria used in this study.

    Criteria
    Inclusion
     Patients with degenerative lumbar disease, including degenerative disc herniation, degenerative lumbar stenosis, and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis
     Preoperative radiographs, including plain radiographs, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, were complete.
     Symptoms for at least for 6 months and refractory to conservative therapy
     Clinical signs consistent with radiographs
     Availability of pre- and postoperative radiographs and medical records
     History of previous lumbar surgery or infection
    Exclusion
     Patients with severe sagittal imbalance
     Patients who underwent interbody fusion using a stand-alone cage or expandable cage
     Patients underwent anterior, extreme lateral, or transforaminal interbody fusion
     Patients with severe osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, or destructive spondyloarthropathy
     Patients with less than 48-month follow-up
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Patient characteristics between 3 groups.

    VariablePLIF group
    (n = 122)
    PLF group
    (n = 126)
    Hybrid group
    (n = 130)
    Statistic P
    Age, y58 ± 960 ± 859 ± 100.2790.757
    Gender4.5750.101
     Men61 (50%)42 (33.3%)39(30%)
     Women61 (50%)84 (66.7%)91(70%)
    BMI (kg/m2)25.3 ± 3.824.8 ± 3.025.9 ± 3.61.4700.233
    Primary diagnosis6.2150.184
     Lumbar spondylolisthesis15 (11.9%)34 (26.7%)37 (28.3%)
     Lumbar stenosis61 (50%)45 (35.6%)61 (46.7%)
     Lumbar disc herniation46 (38.1%)47 (37.8%)33 (25.0%)
    Pfirrmann’s classification of the upper adjacent segment6.6980.584
     I29 (23.8%)30 (24.4%)28 (21.7%)
     II26 (21.4%)47 (37.8%)50 (38.3%)
     III46 (38.1%)27 (22.2%)28 (21.7%)
     IV14 (11.9%)17 (13.3%)15 (11.7%)
     V7 (4.8%)5 (2.2%)9 (6.7%)
    Pfirrmann’s classification of lower adjacent segment8.2180.412
     I17 (14.3%)20 (15.6%)33 (25%)
     II46 (38.1%)59 (46.7%)50 (38.3%)
     III26 (21.4%)22 (17.8%)33 (25%)
     IV23 (19%)11 (8.9%)11 (8.3%)
     V10 (7.1%)14 (11.1%)4 (3.3%)
    Affected levels0.2340.890
     3 levels70 (57.1%)78 (62.2%)78 (60%)
     4 levels52 (42.9%)48 (37.8%)52 (40%)
    Duration of follow-up (y)6.2 ± 1.06.4 ± 1.26.1 ± 1.12.4670.088
    Functional scores
     ODI71.9 ± 7.571.9 ± 3.973.7 ± 4.72.1110.124
     JOA11.2 ± 2.511.4 ± 2.911.2 ± 2.80.1160.891
     VAS (low back)4.9 ± 1.05.1 ± 1.15.2 ± 1.21.5590.213
     VAS (low limbs)6.5 ± 1.16.8 ± 1.06.5 ± 1.11.2510.289
     SF-36 PCS (%)22.0 ± 5.723.0 ± 6.221.1 ± 5.81.6500.195
     SF-36 MCS (%)32.4 ± 6.033.0 ± 6.231.0 ± 5.61.9600.114
    • Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association; MCS, Mental Component Score; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; PCS, Physical Component Score; PLF, posterior lumbar fusion; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; SF-36, 36-item Short Form Health Survey; VAS, visual analog scale.

    • Note: Data presented as mean ± SD or n (%).

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Repeated-measures ANOVA for comparison of clinical outcomes at each follow-up time.

    VariablesGroupsPost 3 moPost 6 moPost 12 moPost 36 moPost 60 moStatistic 1 a P1a Statistic 2b P2b
    VAS-backPLIF3.1 ± 0.9a 1.8 ± 0.9 b,e 1.3 ± 0.8 c,d 1.4 ± 1.0 c,d 1.6 ± 1.9 b,e 0.6850.690117.414 <0.001
    PLF3.1 ± 0.9a 1.9 ± 0.8 b,e 1.2 ± 0.8 c,d 1.1 ± 1.0 c,d 1.7 ± 1.1 b,e     
    Hybrid3.1 ± 1.0a 1.8 ± 0.9 b,e 1.3 ± 0.8 c,d 1.1 ± 1.0 c,d 1.6 ± 1.1 b,e     
    VAS-legPLIF2.5 ± 1.1a 0.7 ± 0.7 b,d,e 0.7 ± 0.8c 1.1 ± 1.0 b,d,e 1.5 ± 1.1 b,d,e 0.6480.72294.174 <0.001
    PLF2.7 ± 1.1a 1.1 ± 0.6 b,d,e 0.8 ± 0.8c 1.2 ± 1.0 b,d,e 1.3 ± 1.0 b,d,e     
    Hybrid2.5 ± 1.08a 1.3 ± 0.7 b,d,e 0.7 ± 0.8c 1.1 ± 1.0 b,d,e 1.5 ± 1.1 b,d,e     
    JOAPLIF15.3 ± 3.0a 18.9 ± 3.3b 22.4 ± 3.3 c,e 22.3 ± 3.5d 22.1 ± 3.6 d,e 2.167 0.047 389.274 <0.001
    PLFc 15.0 ± 2.6a 18.2 ± 2.5b 21.4 ± 2.2 c,e 22.0 ± 2.71d 21.7 ± 2.9 d,e     
    Hybridc 16.0 ± 2.5a 18.8 ± 2.7b 21.9 ± 2.3 c,e 23.3 ± 1.99d 23.5 ± 2.6 d,e     
    ODI PLIFc 56.3 ± 8.3a 46.1 ± 7.2b 35.6 ± 5.8c 28.9 ± 5.21 d,e 28.9 ± 7.0e 2.826 0.006 939.294 <0.001
    PLF 55.6 ± 6.6a 44.1 ± 5.0b 33.4 ± 5.9c 27.6 ± 5.8 d,e 28.4 ± 5.5e     
    Hybridc 53.7 ± 5.34a 44.5 ± 5.3b 34.9 ± 5.2c 25.5 ± 4.8 d,e 24.2 ± 4.22e     
    SF-36d PLIF37.3 ± 4.8a 52.6 ± 5.8b 63.4 ± 4.5c 70.6 ± 6.9d 73.0 ± 6.2e 3.589<0.0011020 <0.001
    PLF38.4 ± 7.1a 51.8 ± 6.5b 64.5 ± 6.8c 71.4 ± 5.7d 74.1 ± 6.0e     
    Hybrid40.1 ± 7a 50.3 ± 6.65b 61.3 ± 8.1c 72.8 ± 6.0d 76.5 ± 6.5e     
    CobbPLIF49.7 ± 5.1a 50.5 ± 5.3 a,b,c,d,e 51.3 ± 4.6c 47.1 ± 7.8 a,d 43.3 ± 7.2e 3.594<0.00118.176 <0.001
    PLF48.7 ± 6.9a 49.9 ± 6.1 a,b,c,d,e 50.7 ± 5.6c 48.5 ± 6.8 a,d 45.4 ± 6.2e     
    Hybrid47.7 ± 5.1a 48.8 ± 6.7 a,b,c,d,e 50.5 ± 7.8c 49.6 ± 8.4 a,d 48.1 ± 7.0e     
    • Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; SF-36, 36-item Short Form Health Survey; VAS, visual analog scale.

    • Note: Data presented as mean ± SD. The use of superscripts a, b, c, d, and e in the data cells denotes pairwise comparisons. If the superscript letters between 2 groups are different, it indicates a significant difference between the groups. For example, when comparing the mean ODI scores at 12, 36, and 60 months post-surgery in the hybrid group, the mean at 12 months post-surgery is marked with “c,” the mean at 36 months post-surgery is marked with “d,e,” and the mean at 60 months post-surgery is marked with “e.” This indicates that the mean ODI score at 12 months post-surgery is significantly different from the means at 36 and 60 months post-surgery, while there is no significant statistical difference between the means at 36 and 60 months post-surgery.

    • ↵a Measure time.

    • ↵b Interaction analysis between group and measure time.

    • ↵c Mean statistical significance between groups.

    • ↵d The data satisfy Mauchly’s test of sphericity.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Intraoperative and postoperative complications between 3 groups.

    Variables PLIF group
     (n = 122)
     PLF group
     (n = 126)
     Hybrid group
     (n = 130)
     P
    Intraoperative complications 18 (15) 8 (6.6) 13 (9.8) 0.050
     Dural tear 13 (10.6) a  4 (3.3) b  8 (6.3) a,b  0.035
     Nerve root injury 5 (4.4) 4 (3.3) 5 (3.5) 0.863
    Adverse events 29 (24.4) a  21 (16.4) a,b  16 (12.5) b  0.022
     Sensory deficiency 6 (5) 7 (5.9) 5 (3.5) 0.612
     Screw loosening 3 (2.5) 2 (1.3) 2 (1.4) 0.604
     Cage subsidence 8 (6.9) NA 4 (2.8) 0.117
     Cage retropulsion 5 (4.4) NA 2 (1.4) 0.179
     Others a  7 (5.6) 12 (9.2) 5 (3.5) 0.114
    5-year ASDeg-multilevel 56/135 (42)a  52/141 (37)a,b  40/138 (29)c  0.044
     Upper 37/92 (40.2) 34/94 (36) 22/84 (27.8) 0.104
     Lower 20/43 (46.5) 18/47 (38.3) 18/54 (33.3) 0.430
    5-year ASDis-multilevel 16/135 (12.3) 16/141 (9.9) 10/138 (7.6) 0.338
     Upper 10/92 (10.7) 9/94 (9.7) 6/84 (6.9) 0.577
     Lower 7/43 (16.3) 5/47 (10.6) 5/54 (9.3) 0.581
    • Abbreviations: ASDeg, adjacent segment degeneration; ASDis, adjacent segment disease; NA, not applicable; PLF, posterior lumbar fusion; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

    • Note: Data are presented as n (%). The use of superscripts a, b, and c in the data cells denotes pairwise comparisons. If the superscripts are different, it indicates a significant difference between the groups. See Table 3 for additional explanation.

    • ↵a Wound infection, rod broken, screw broken, and pseudarthrosis.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 18, Issue 6
1 Dec 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of Clinical Efficacy in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, and Hybrid Surgery
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Comparison of Clinical Efficacy in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, and Hybrid Surgery
Zhenbiao Zhu, Anwu Xuan, Cheng Xu, Chaofeng Wang, Qing He, Liang Tang, Dike Ruan
International Journal of Spine Surgery Dec 2024, 18 (6) 756-768; DOI: 10.14444/8659

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparison of Clinical Efficacy in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, and Hybrid Surgery
Zhenbiao Zhu, Anwu Xuan, Cheng Xu, Chaofeng Wang, Qing He, Liang Tang, Dike Ruan
International Journal of Spine Surgery Dec 2024, 18 (6) 756-768; DOI: 10.14444/8659
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Recovery Trajectories After Lumbar Fusion Stratified by Baseline Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Disability Levels
  • Safety and Viability of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Complex Revision Lumbar Spine Surgeries: Insights From a Case Series of 135 Patients on Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion/Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Removal
  • Effects of Body Mass Index on Spondylolisthesis Surgery and Associated Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Retrospective Review
Show more Lumbar Spine

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • lumbar degenerative disease
  • posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)
  • posterior lumbar fusion (PLF)
  • hybrid surgery
  • adjacent segment disaese

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire