Objective To evaluate the efficacy of lumbar posterolateral fusion(PLF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF) in the treatment of the degenerative lumbar disease. Methods We searched Medline(1966 to March, 2012), Embase(1984 to March, 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial(1th Quarter 2012), Current Controlled Trials, The China Biological Medicine Database (1984 to March, 2012), and several related journals. The qua1ity of included trials was evaluated. Data were extracted by two reviewers independently with a designed extraction form. RevMan 5.0 software was used for data analysis. Results Four studies involving 329 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that in the fusion rate(OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.19-0.85, P=0.02) and back pain visual analogue scale(VAS) (WMD 0.43,95%CI 0.10-0.76, P=0.01), PLIF group was significantly better than PLF group. Blood lost during operation and during the 1st postoperative day was significantly less in PLIF group than in PLF group (WMD 320.03, 95%CI 241.26-398.79, P＜0.00001). There were no statistically significant differences in the Oswestry disability index(WMD 2.86, 95%CI -0.56-6.26, P=0.1), leg pain VAS(WMD 0.34, 95%CI -0.11-0.79, P = 0.13) and lumbar lordotic angle (WMD -2.43, 95%CI -5.42 -0.55), P = 0.11). Conclusions To compare with PLF, PLIF has the advantages of less blood loss, higher fusion rate, and better back pain relief. More high quality large-scale randomized controlled trials are required.