OBJECTIVE: To present our experience in posterolateral vs circumferential (360º) arthrodesis in the lumbosacral spine during the period 2000-2010. METHODS: 132 patients (61 patients with arthrodesis 360º and 71 patients with posterolateral arthrodesis). RESULTS: Female predominance (51.5%); mean age 45.5 years, follow-up of 60 months; instrumented level with arthrodesis 360º, L4-L5 (54.5%) and posterolateral, L5-S1 (38.5%); there was similarity between the Oswestry Quesionnaire and Visual Analog Pain Scale in the pre- and postoperative period. Radiologically it was demonstrated transition syndrome in 15.5% posterolateral and arthrodesis 360º in 3.2%; 5 cases of fatigue of the implants in the posterolateral arthrodesis and 2 cases of arthrodesis 360º; 2 cases of pseudoartrose with posterolateral and circumferential fusion; 1 case of infection in each study group. CONCLUSION: Our results do not reflect functional differences; however we found fewer complications in the transitional syndrome (11 vs 2) and migration of the implants (5 vs 2) fusion with posterolateral arthrodesis vs 360º arthrodesis, although without statistical significance.
Spine; Low back pain; Arthrodesis
