STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter analysis of two groups of patients surgically treated for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis.
OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is widely performed. However, few reports have compared the outcome of PLF to that of PLIF for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis.
METHODS: Patients with L4 unstable spondylolisthesis with Meyerding grade II or more, slip of >10° or >4 mm upon maximum flexion and extension bending, and posterior opening of >5 degree upon flexion bending were studied. Patients were treated from January 2008 to January 2010. Patients who underwent PLF (n=12) and PLIF (n=19) were followed-up for >2 years. Radiographic findings and clinical outcomes evaluated by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were compared between the two groups. Radiographic evaluation included slip angle, translation, slip angle and translation during maximum flexion and extension bending, intervertebral disc height, lumbar lordotic angle, and fusion rate.
RESULTS: JOA scores of the PLF group before surgery and at final follow-up were 12.3±4.8 and 24.1±3.7, respectively; those of the PLIF group were 14.7±4.8 and 24.2±7.8, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. Correction of slip estimated from postoperative slip angle, translation, and maintenance of intervertebral disc height in the PLIF group was significantly (p<0.05) better than those in the PLF group. However, there was no significant difference in lumbar lordotic angle, slip angle and translation angle upon maximum flexion, or extension bending. Fusion rates of the PLIF and PLF groups had no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: The L4-L5 level posterior instrumented fusion for unstable spondylolisthesis using both PLF and PLIF could ameliorate clinical symptoms when local stability is achieved.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective 1-year cost-utility analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of decompression with and without instrumented fusion for patients with grade I degenerative L4-L5 spondylolisthesis at 1-year follow-up.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite its benefits to health outcomes, lumbar fusion is associated with substantial costs. This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of instrumented fusion for grade I L4-L5 spondylolisthesis at 1-year follow-up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four cohorts of 25 patients with grade I L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis were analyzed: cohort 1 (decompression), cohort 2 (decompression with instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF), cohort 3 (decompression with instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion), and cohort 4 (decompression with instrumented PLF and posterior lumbar interbody fusion/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion). One-year postoperative health outcomes were assessed based on Visual Analogue Scale, Pain Disability Questionnaire, and EuroQol 5 Dimensions questionnaires. Direct medical costs were estimated using Medicare national payment amounts and indirect costs were based on patient missed work days. Postoperative 1-year cost/utility ratios and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a threshold of $100,000/QALY gained.
RESULTS: Compared with preoperative health states, EuroQol 5 Dimensions QALY scores improved for all cohorts (P<0.01). The 1-year cost-utility ratio for cohort 1 was significantly lower ($56,610/QALY gained; P<0.01) than that for cohorts 2 ($116,991/QALY gained), 3 ($109,740/QALY gained), and 4 ($107,546/QALY gained). The 1-year ICERs relative to cohort 1 were: cohort 2 (dominated), cohort 3 ($1,060,549/QALY gained), and cohort 4 ($830,047/QALY gained).
CONCLUSIONS: Decompression without fusion is cost-effective for patients with grade I L4-L5 spondylolisthesis. Decompression with fusion is not cost effective in a 1-year timeframe for these patients based on the threshold. Accordingly, although fusion is beneficial for improving health outcomes in patients with spondylolisthesis, it is not cost-effective when analyzing a 1-year timeframe based on the threshold. The durability of these results must be analyzed with longer term cost-utility analysis studies.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The favorable outcome of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) is widely recognized, but some patients require reoperation because of complications, such as pseudoarthrosis, persistent pain, infection, and progressive degenerative changes. Among these changes, adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and same segmental disease (SSD) are common reasons for reoperation. However, the relative risks of the various factors and their interactions are unclear.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the longitudinal reoperation rate after surgery for DS and to assess the incidence and independent risk factors for ASD and SSD.
STUDY DESIGN: This study is a retrospective consecutive case series of patients with DS who were surgically treated.
PATIENT SAMPLE: We assessed 163 consecutive patients who were surgically treated for DS between 2003 and 2008. Individual patients were followed for at least 5 years after the initial surgery.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was any type of second lumbar surgery. Radiographic measurements and demographic data were reviewed. We compared patients who underwent reoperation with those who did not. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the relative risk of ASD and SSD in patients surgically treated for DS.
METHODS: Radiographic measurements and demographic data were reviewed. We identified the incidence and risk factors for reoperation, and we performed univariate and multivariate analyses to determine the independent risk factors for revision surgery for SSD and for ASD as the two distinct reasons for the reoperation. Age, gender, etiology, body mass index (BMI), and other radiographic data were analyzed to determine the risk factors for developing SSD and ASD.
RESULTS: The average patient age was 65.8 (50-81 years; 73 women and 90 men; mean follow-up, 5.9±1.6 years). Eighty-nine patients had posterior lumbar interbody fusion and 74 had laminotomies. Twenty-two patients had L3-L4 involvement and 141 had L4-L5 involvement. The cumulative reoperation rate was 6.1% at 1 year, 8.5% at 2 years, 15.2% at 3 years, 17.7% at 5 years, and 23.3% (38/163 patients) at the final follow-up. A significantly higher reoperation rate was observed for patients undergoing laminotomy than for patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (33.8% vs. 14.4%, p=.01). Eighteen patients (11.0%) had SSD, and 13 patients (8.9%) developed ASD. Higher BMI (obesity) and greater disc height (greater than 10 mm) predicted the occurrence of SSD in the multivariate model (BMI=odds ratio 4.11 [95% confidence interval 1.29-13.11], p=.016; disc height=3.18 [1.03-9.82], p=.044), and gender (male) and facet degeneration (Fujiwara grade greater than 3) predicted the development of ASD in the multivariate model (gender=4.74 [1.09-20.45], p=.037; facet degeneration=6.31 [1.09-36.52], p=.039).
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of reoperation in patients surgically treated for DS was 23.2% at a mean time of 5.9 years. A significantly higher incidence of reoperation was observed in patients treated with decompression alone compared with those treated with decompression and fusion. Body mass index and disc height were identified as independent risk factors for SSD, whereas male gender and facet degeneration were identified as independent risk factors for ASD. The results of this comprehensive review will guide spine surgeons in their preoperative planning and in the surgical management of patients with DS, thereby reducing the reoperation rate.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-controlled study using propensity score matching.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cervical microendoscopic laminoplasty (CMEL) of the articular segment in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) by comparing the clinical results of CMEL with conventional expansive laminoplasty (ELAP) for CSM.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A total of 259 patients undergoing CMEL or ELAP surgery for CSM at authors' institute were reviewed.
METHODS: The patients were matched according to calculated propensity scores in a logistic regression model adjusted for age, sex, and preoperative severity of disorders and divided into the CMEL and ELAP groups. All patients were followed postoperatively for more than 2 years. The preoperative and 2-year follow-up evaluations included neurological assessment (Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA] score), recovery rates, the JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ), axial pain (visual analog scale), and the Short Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36).
RESULTS: There were 71 patients in each group (47 males and 24 females each). The mean ages of the CMEL and ELAP groups were 63.8 and 62.8 years, respectively. There was no significant difference in the preoperative JOA score between groups. The mean numbers of surgically affected levels in the ELAP and CMEL groups were 3.2 and 1.8 discs, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). The groups exhibited similar recoveries of JOA, JOACMEQ, and SF-36 scores postoperatively. Sagittal alignment was maintained in both groups. However, postoperative neck axial complaints were significantly reduced in the CMEL group.
CONCLUSION: CMEL may be a useful and effective surgical procedure for CSM, providing similar results as ELAP. CMEL for CSM is indicated for posterior decompression of the articular segment along with a pincer mechanism. This minimally invasive technique may have potential advantages compared with conventional ELAP, and may provide an alternative surgical option.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study of 2 different fusion techniques for the treatment of single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of an intervertebral cage improves the clinical outcome and fusion rate of patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) after decompression for degenerative spondylolisthesis.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The surgical approach that should be used for degenerative spondylolisthesis is a controversial issue. Decompression and PLIF with an interbody cage is widely used. Theoretical advantages in favor of PLIF include anterior column support, indirect foraminal decompression, restoration of lordosis, and reduction of the slip via ligamentotaxis. Despite numerous publications, the scientific support for the PLIF method is, however, weak.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was carried out including 59 patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Average age of patients was 66 years: 34 males and 25 females. Patients were divided into 2 treatment groups: group 1-32 patients with PLIF with interbody graft and group 2-27 patients with PLIF with cage. Minimum 2-year follow-up. Outcomes were assessed by measuring preoperative and postoperative lordotic angles. SF-12 physical and mental health scores were recorded along with visual analogue scores for pain. Complications were also recorded.
RESULTS: No significant difference in the postoperative lordotic angles was achieved between the 2 techniques. Nonsignificant difference in the clinical outcomes between both the techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: We have found the use of a cage to achieve lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis does not confer any significant advantages in terms of restoration of lumbar lordosis, improvement in clinical symptoms, or relief of pain postoperatively.
STUDY DESIGN: Independent retrospective review of prospectively collected data, comparative cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical, radiographical, and cost/value of the addition of an interbody arthrodesis (IBA) to a posterolateral arthrodesis (PLA) in the surgical treatment of L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The authors hypothesized that the addition of IBA to PLA would produce added value while incurring minimal additional costs.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many lumbar surgical advances have been made during the past several decades, yet there is a paucity of strong evidence-based validation, let alone comparative value analyses. The addition of an IBA to a PLA has become increasingly popular during the past 2 decades, yet the potential added value for the patient has not been carefully defined.
METHODS: Patients undergoing single-level arthrodesis for L4-L5 DS performed at our institution from 2004 to 2012 were identified. Exclusion criteria included multilevel arthrodesis, spinal stenosis requiring decompression at or above L2-L3, previous L4-L5 spinal fusion, spondylolisthesis of greater than 33% of the vertebral body, and use of minimally invasive surgery. Radiographical fusion status, epidemiological, surgical, and functional outcomes, and cost/value data were recorded or calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 179 patients with follow-up meeting inclusion criteria were identified: 68 with PLA alone and 111 with PLA + IBA. No statistical differences were noted in Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores, fusion rates, or cost/value at 6 months and at more than 3 years despite the PLA cohort being significantly older with more medical comorbidities. When length of stay was normalized across cohorts, the addition of an IBA increased hospital costs ranging from $577 to $5276, but this did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSION: This single-center review of open surgical treatment of L4-L5 DS demonstrated that the addition of IBA to PLA added cost while producing equivalent results in fusion rates, Oswestry Disability Index, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores when compared with PLA alone.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Objective To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods This study compared 24 patients undergoing TLIF and 32 patients undergoing PLF with instrumentation. The clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain and leg pain, physical component summary (PCS) of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiographic parameters included slippage of the vertebra, local disk lordosis, the anterior and posterior disk height, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic parameters. Results The improvement of VAS of leg pain was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF unilaterally (3.4 versus 1.0; p = 0.02). The improvement of VAS of low back pain was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF (3.8 versus 2.2; p = 0.02). However, there was no significant difference in improvement of ODI or PCS between TLIF and PLF. Reduction of slippage and the postoperative disk height was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF. There was no significant difference in local disk lordosis, lumbar lordosis, or pelvic parameters. The fusion rate was 96% in TLIF and 84% in PLF (p = 0.3). There was no significant difference in fusion rate, estimated blood loss, adjacent segmental degeneration, or complication rate. Conclusions TLIF was superior to PLF in reduction of slippage and restoring disk height and might provide better improvement of leg pain. However, the health-related outcomes were not significantly different between the two procedures.
UNLABELLED: Degenerative spondylolisthesis is common in adults. No consensus is available about the analysis or surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. In 2013, the French Society for Spine Surgery (Societe francaise de chirurgie du rachis) held a round table discussion to develop a classification system and assess the outcomes of the main surgical treatments. A multicentre study was conducted in nine centres located throughout France and Luxembourg. We established a database on a prospective cohort of 260 patients included between July 2011 and July 2012 and a retrospective cohort of 410 patients included in personal databases between 2009 and 2013. For patients in the prospective cohort clinical assessments were performed before and after surgery using the self-administered functional impact questionnaire AQS, SF12, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Type of treatment and complications were recorded. Antero-posterior and lateral full-length radiographs were used to measure lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and percentage of vertebral slippage. Mean follow-up was 10 months. We started a randomised clinical trial comparing posterior fusion of degenerative spondylolisthesis with versus without an inter-body cage. 60 patients were included, 30 underwent 180° fusion and 30 underwent 360° fusion using an inter-body cage implanted via a transforaminal approach. We evaluated the quality of neural decompression achieved by minimally invasive fusion technique. In a subgroup of 24 patients computed tomography (CT) was performed before and after the procedure and then compared. Mean age was 67 years and 73% of degenerative spondylolisthesis were located at L4-L5 level. The many surgical procedures performed in the prospective cohort were posterior fusion (39%), posterior fusion combined with inter-body fusion (36%), dynamic stabilization (15%), anterior lumbar fusion (8%), and postero-lateral fusion without exogenous material (2%). Peri-operative complications of any severity occurred in 17% of patients. The AQS, ODI and SF12 scores were improved significantly at follow-up. We found no differences in clinical improvements across surgical procedure types. Circumferential fusion (360°) was associated with greater relief of nerve root pain and better lordosis recovery after 1 year compared to postero-lateral fusion (180°). Post-operative CT images showed effective decompression of nervous structures after minimally invasive fusion. Longer follow-up of our patients is needed to assess the stability of the results of the various surgical procedures. Based on a radiological analysis, the authors propose a new classification with five types of degenerative spondylolisthesis: type 1, SL>5° and LL>PI-10°; type 2, SL<5° and LL>PI-10°; type 3, LL<PI-10°; type 4, LL<PI-10° and compensated sagittal balance with PT>25°; and type 5, sagittal imbalance with SVA>4 cm.
PROOF LEVEL: IV Observational cohort study. Retrospective review of prospectively collected outcome data.
STUDY DESIGN: Case-matched retrospective.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to compare 2-year health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes of patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level posterolateral spine fusion (PSF) versus transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis, disk pathology, and postdecompression instability.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal surgical technique for patients with spondylolisthesis or other degenerative conditions has not been defined. Historically, PSF was the most common procedure, whereas in recent years TLIF has gained popularity. Although theoretical advantages for TLIF have been outlined, evidence for improved outcomes with the addition of interbody support is limited.
METHODS: Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, with disk pathology and or postdecompression instability who underwent 1-level or 2-level TLIF and completed 2 years postoperative HRQOL measures were identified from a prospective database. These patients were then propensity-matched to a cohort of PSF patients based on age, number of surgical levels, body mass index, sex, smoking status, workers' compensation status, and preoperative outcome measures including the Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36 Physical Component Summary score, SF-36 Mental Composite Summary score, and back and leg pain scores. This produced 63 matched pairs with degenerative spondylolisthesis, 46 with disk pathology and 32 with postdecompression instability.
RESULTS: All patients in both groups for each cohort reported statistically significant improvement in HRQOL scores at 2 years postoperatively compared with baseline. Improvements in the Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36 Physical Component Summary score, and back and leg pain scores within the spondylolisthesis and disk pathology subgroups were similar between patients who had a TLIF compared with those who had a PSF. The postdecompression instability subgroup was the only subgroup in which TLIF outperformed PSF for every outcome measure.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcome was not significantly altered with TLIF as compared with PSF in patients with spondylolisthesis or disk pathology. However, TLIF resulted in better outcomes at 2 years postoperatively in patients with postdecompression instability.
BACKGROUND: The vacuum phenomenon within an intervertebral disc is not an uncommon radiographic finding in the elderly. However, no reports in the English literature have focused on the effect of an anterior vacuum disc in relation to surgical outcome of same-segment spondylolisthesis. We hypothesized that instrumented posterolateral fusion is not adequate in this situation and that additional interbody fusion with cages would provide better radiographic and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: The medical records of 72 patients who underwent instrumented fusion for one-segment degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with a vacuum disc were reviewed. Thirty-three patients were placed in the noncage group and 39 in the cage group based on whether or not augmentation with an intervertebral cage was carried out. Radiographic parameters (disc height, translation, intradiscal angle, segmental angle, and fusion) on preoperative, postoperative, and final radiographs were compared between groups. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Brosky criteria were used to evaluate clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Blood loss and operation time were greater in the cage group but without a significant difference (p = 0.271, p = 0.108, respectively). Preoperative radiographic data were similar between groups, but the cage group had more intradiscal lordosis, less translation, a higher disc height after surgery, and maintained these advantages at the final follow-up. In addition, the posterolateral fusion rate was significantly higher in the cage group (92.3% vs. 56.1%, p < 0.001), and they obtained more ODI improvement (30.62 vs. 26.39, p = 0.369) and a higher final satisfaction rate (79.5% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.044). There was no decrease in the incidence of developed adjacent segmental disease in the noncage group.
CONCLUSIONS: The vacuum sign at the spondylolisthesis segment should be regarded as another sign of instability. We suggest that instrumented posterolateral fusion simultaneous with intervertebral fusion with a cage can overcome this situation.
Multicenter analysis of two groups of patients surgically treated for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis.
PURPOSE:
To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis.
OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE:
Surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is widely performed. However, few reports have compared the outcome of PLF to that of PLIF for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis.
METHODS:
Patients with L4 unstable spondylolisthesis with Meyerding grade II or more, slip of >10° or >4 mm upon maximum flexion and extension bending, and posterior opening of >5 degree upon flexion bending were studied. Patients were treated from January 2008 to January 2010. Patients who underwent PLF (n=12) and PLIF (n=19) were followed-up for >2 years. Radiographic findings and clinical outcomes evaluated by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were compared between the two groups. Radiographic evaluation included slip angle, translation, slip angle and translation during maximum flexion and extension bending, intervertebral disc height, lumbar lordotic angle, and fusion rate.
RESULTS:
JOA scores of the PLF group before surgery and at final follow-up were 12.3±4.8 and 24.1±3.7, respectively; those of the PLIF group were 14.7±4.8 and 24.2±7.8, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. Correction of slip estimated from postoperative slip angle, translation, and maintenance of intervertebral disc height in the PLIF group was significantly (p<0.05) better than those in the PLF group. However, there was no significant difference in lumbar lordotic angle, slip angle and translation angle upon maximum flexion, or extension bending. Fusion rates of the PLIF and PLF groups had no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS:
The L4-L5 level posterior instrumented fusion for unstable spondylolisthesis using both PLF and PLIF could ameliorate clinical symptoms when local stability is achieved.
