Comparative Assessment of Salivary Endothelin-1 Levels In Periodontitis Subjects Following Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy (Nspt) With Adjunctive Photobiomodulation And Nspt Alone: A Prospective Interventional Study

Authors

  • Sharayu Kulkarni
  • Sameer Zope
  • Girish Suragimath
  • Siddhartha Varma
  • Apurva Kale

Keywords:

N\A

Abstract

Lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis usually entails sacrificing one or both of the facet joints when approached posteriorly. The ‘facet preserving’ PLIF described by Cloward carries an advantage of preserving bone stock, compared to the most widely used Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion technique.

Aim: To Compare Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion techniques.

Settings and Design:  Cohort study.

Methods and Material: We compared the complications, clinical and radiological outcomes of PLIF (n = 25) and TLIF (n = 50). Outcome measures included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) , modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (mJOA), and visual analog  score (VAS). Radiographs were repeated at six months. Peri-operative outcomes like blood loss (ml), operative time (minutes), length of stay in hospital (days), incidence of surgical complications were also recorded.

Statistical analysis: t-test was used for the analysis of continuous data with normal distribution and Mann-Whitney U-test for data with non-normal distribution. Chi-square test was performed for categorical variables with groups. Pearson correlation done between two continuous variables. Differences were considered significant at P<0.05.

Results:Average follow up time for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion technique was 28 months compared to 25 months for  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion technique (P value 0.52). Operative time was significantly lower in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion technique (P value < 0.001). Complication rate (P value 0.132), clinical and radiological outcomes were comparable in both the techniques.

Conclusions:Both Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion technique yield

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

A glossary on spinal terminology. Chicago: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon; 1985

Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T, Tamura Y, Chiba M, Sato K. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999 Aug;70(4):329-34.

Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg. 1953;10(2):154-168

Epstein NE. More nerve root injuries occur with minimally invasive lumbar surgery, especially extreme lateral interbody fusion: A review. SurgNeurol Int. 2016 Jan 25;7(Suppl 3):S83-95.

Polly DW Jr, Kilkelly FX, McHale KA, Asplund LM, Mulligan M, Chang AS. Measurement of lumbar lordosis. Evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Jul 1;21(13):1530-5; discussion 1535-

Kukkar N, Gupta A, Banerjee D, Bedi N, Main BJ (2013) Alterations in Disc Height, Foraminal Height and Foraminal Width Following One and Two Level AxiaLIF® – A Radiological Analysis. J Spine S5: 008

Glavas P, Mac-Thiong JM, Parent S, de Guise JA, Labelle H. Assessment of lumbosacral kyphosis in spondylolisthesis: a computer-assisted reliability study of six measurement techniques. Eur Spine J. 2009 Feb;18(2):212-7.

McCarty ME, Mehlman CT, Tamai J, Do TT, Crawford AH, Klein G. Spondylolisthesis: intraobserver and interobserver reliability with regard to the measurement of slip percentage. J PediatrOrthop. 2009 Oct-Nov;29(7):755-9.

Rezk, E.M.A., Elkholy, A.R. &Shamhoot, E.A. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. Egypt J Neurosurg 34, 26 (2019)

Lan T, Hu SY, Zhang YT, Zheng YC, Zhang R, Shen Z et al. Comparison Between Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018 Apr;112:86-93.

Fan G, Wu X, Yu S, Sun Q, Guan X, Zhang H et al. Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Three-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:9540298

Audat Z, Moutasem O, Yousef K, Mohammad B. Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. Singapore Med J. 2012 Mar;53(3):183-7.

Al Barbarawi MM, Audat ZM, Allouh MZ. Analytical comparison study of the clinical and radiological outcome of spine fixation using posterolateral, posterior lumber interbody and transforaminal lumber interbody spinal fixation techniques to treat lumber spine degenerative disc disease. Scoliosis. 2015 May 27;10:17.

Brantigan JW, Cunningham BW, Warden K, McAfee PC, Steffee AD. Compression strength of donor bone for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:1213–21.

Kim KH, Park JY, Chin DK. Fusion criteria for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with intervertebral cages : the significance of traction spur. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2009 Oct;46(4):328-332

Sakeb N, Ahsan K. Comparison of the early results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic lumbar instability. Indian journal of orthopaedics 2013;47:255-63

Liu J, Deng H, Long X, Chen X, Xu R, Liu Z. A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2016 May;25(5):1575-1580.

Lee N, Kim KN, Yi S, Ha Y, Shin DA, Yoon DH et al. Comparison of outcomes of anterior-, posterior- and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery at a single lumbar level with degenerative spinal disease, World Neurosurgery (2017)

Chrastil J, Patel AA. Complications associated with posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Am AcadOrthop Surg. 2012 May;20(5):283-91.

Asil K, Yaldiz C. Retrospective Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of PLIF and TLIF Techniques in Patients Who Underwent Lumbar Spinal Posterior Stabilization. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016

Mehta VA, McGirt MJ, Garcés Ambrossi GL, Parker SL, Sciubba DM, Bydon A, et al. Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity. Neurol Res. 2011 Jan;33(1):38-42.

Matsui H, Kitagawa H, Kawaguchi Y, Tsuji H: Physiologic changes of nerve root during posterior lumbar discectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20(6):654- 659.

F

Downloads

Published

2025-05-19

How to Cite

1.
Kulkarni S, Zope S, Suragimath G, Varma S, Kale A. Comparative Assessment of Salivary Endothelin-1 Levels In Periodontitis Subjects Following Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy (Nspt) With Adjunctive Photobiomodulation And Nspt Alone: A Prospective Interventional Study. J Neonatal Surg [Internet]. 2025May19 [cited 2025Sep.21];14(24S):915-22. Available from: https://www.jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/view/6084

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 24S (2025): Journal of Neonatal Surgery

Section

Original Article

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.