Study

Study design

Grades/levels included

Number of Patients

PLIF/PLF

Age (years)

PLIF/PLF

Follow up period

Fusion rate (%)

PLIF/PLF

ODI

PLIF/PLF

DRI

PLIF/PLF

Pain VAS

PLIF/PLF

Patients satisfaction

PLIF/PLF

Overall conclusion of authors

Clinical and Mechanical outcomes

Dehoux et al. 2004

NRCT

1 - 3/N/A

27/25

39.5 vs 42.4

6 years

93 vs 68

N/A

N/A

N/A

77% vs 68%

Clinically PLIF = PLF

Mechanically PLIF better than PLF

Ekman et al. 2007

NRCT

1 - 3/L3-L5

86 vs 77

40 vs 39

2 years

N/A

25 vs 25

47→30 vs

49→29

35 vs 37

PLF > PLIF

PLIF = PLF mechanically

But with more complications

Farrokhi et al. 2012

RCT

N/A/L3-S1

40 vs 40

50.4 vs 49.7

1 year

89.1 vs 66.7

17 ± 12.98 post surgery (PLIF)

25.34 ± 9.36 (PLF)

N/A

1.2 ± 1.58 vs 1 ± 0.98

PLF > PLIF

PLF is better than PLIF clinically

Lee et al. 2014

Prospective Randomized study

1 - 2/L4-S1

42 vs 39

53.4 vs 53.7

>2 years

90.4 vs 89.7

38.9 ± 9.1→9.0 ± 1.6

vs

37.5 ± 9.4→8.6 ± 1.3

NA

8.7 ± 1.3→1.5 ± 1.2 vs

8.5 ± 1.4→1.6 ± 1.0

(Lower Back Pain)

6.4 ± 2.1→0.9 ± 0.3 vs

5.9 ± 2.3→1.0 ± 0.4

(Radiating Pain)

N/A

PLIF = PLF

Musluman et al. 2011

RCT

1 - 2/L3-S1

25 vs 25

50.6 vs 47.3

Up to 6 years.

96 vs 80

30.20 ± 5.70 →13.60 ± 1.95

vs

29.20 ± 6.42 → 18.20 ± 3.65

N/A

1.00 ± 0.64 vs 1.08 ± 0.90 (Leg Pain)

1.20 ± 0.57 vs 1.8 ± 0.57 (Back Pain)

N/A

PLIF better mechanically PLF is better clinically