Comparison of the effectiveness of vertebral arch replantation and laminectomy in the treatment of mild to moderate isthmic spondylolisthesis

Abstract

To compare the effectiveness of vertebral arch replantation and laminectomy in the treatment of mild to moderate isthmic spondylolisthesis. The clinical data of 66 patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated with vertebral arch replantation or laminectomy between March 2014 and July 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into trial group (34 cases, treated with complete replantation of vertebral arch, intervertebral fusion, and internal fixation) and control group (32 cases, treated with laminectomy with intervertebral fusion and internal fixation) according to different surgical methods. There was no significant difference in general data of gender, age, disease duration, lesion segment, Meyerding grade, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, vertebral arch fusion of trial group, and epidural scar formation of the two groups were recorded. The VAS score, JOA score, and ODI score were evaluated at preoperation, 3, 6, 12 months after operation, and at last follow-up. The effectiveness was evaluated according to HOU Shuxun's criteria. All the patients successfully completed the surgery, without any aggravation of nerve injury, dural tear, infection, etc. There was no significant difference in the operation time between the two groups ( t=0.583, P=0.562), but the intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the trial group than that in the control group ( t=2.134, P=0.037). All the 66 patients were followed up 13-18 months (mean, 16.2 months). Postoperative clinical symptoms of all patients were significantly improved. In the control group, 7 cases were found to have symptoms of spinal canal stenosis with postoperative posture changes at 3 months after operation, and 5 cases showed mild lower limb numbness at 18 months after operation. No complication such as infection and nerve injury occurred in other patients. In the trial group, 34 cases of epidural scar tissue were completely blocked outside the replantation vertebral arch, while in the control group, 11 cases of epidural scar tissue invaded the spinal canal. At last follow-up, the fusion rate of intervertebral bone grafting and vertebral arch replantation in the trial group was 100%, and the fusion rate of intervertebral bone grafting in the control group was also 100%. The VAS score, ODI score, and JOA score were significantly improved at each time point after operation ( P<0.01). The ODI score and JOA score of the trial group were significantly better than those of the control group at 3 months after operation and at last follow-up ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in scores between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). According to HOU Shuxun's criteria, the excellent and good rate was 91.2% in the trial group and 84.4% in the control group, showing no significant difference ( χ 2=1.092, P=0.573). Compared with laminectomy, vertebral arch replantation can better improve postoperative neurological symptoms, maximize the reconstruction of the bone spinal canal, restore the stability of the intraspinal environment, and it is a better surgical method for lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.