{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036065573770491806, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007868852459016393, 'mean_word_length': 5.228571428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented posterolateral versus instrumented posterolateral with transforaminal lumbar interbody single-level fusion.

Background
The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated by posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) versus PLF with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLF + TLIF). Studies of PLF versus PLF + TLIF have shown either equivalence or support for PLF + TLIF in lumbar spine surgery. Many are heterogeneous in the conditions treated, with few considering only spondylolisthesis of degenerative origin. Radiographic outcomes tend to favor PLF + TLIF, but this has not translated into better clinical outcomes.


Methods
This was a retrospective cohort study. Forty-nine patients undergoing single-level PLF and seventy patients undergoing single-level PLF + TLIF with two-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), implant cost, surgical data, and complications were analyzed.


Results
There was no difference in ODI improvement at two-year follow-up between the cohorts (P=0.97). Dural tears were more common in the PLF cohort (P<0.01), but otherwise complication and reoperation rates were similar. Implant cost (P<0.01) and operative time (P=0.01) were higher in the PLF + TLIF cohort.


Conclusions
The addition of a TLIF to a PLF did not result in a functional improvement in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis as measured by the ODI.