Treatment Of Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Research Articles

Subscription Information

The standard surgical treatment for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis consists of various techniques of arthrodesis supplemented with instrumentation. However, the superiority of this strategy has not been irrefutably proved. Considering the risk associated with the instrumentation surgery, examining a less invasive approach is justified.We describe a series of 9 patients with adult isthmic spondylolisthesis, in whom we microsurgically decompressed the responsible nerve root in the intervertebral foramen through the posterolateral intermuscular approach. Technical details specific to isthmic spondylolisthesis were reviewed. The 2-year outcome was assessed with Short Form 36 and visual analog scale scores.The mean age of the patients was 68 ± 7 years (standard deviation [SD]). The mean slip rate of spondylolisthesis measured on the preoperative lumbar radiography was 20% ± 12% (SD). All patients successfully underwent the procedure without complications. All the examined scores remained significantly better than the preoperative values 2 years after surgery; the mean visual analog scale score decreased from 7.8 ± 2.8 (SD) preoperatively to 2.8 ± 1.4 (SD) at 2 years (P = 0.008), average physical score of Short Form 36 improved from 33.1 ± 9.7 to 52.5 ± 9.4 (P = 0.001), and the bodily pain score improved from 28.0 ± 13.5 to 55.1 ± 9.7 (P = 0.001).Microsurgical decompression through the posterolateral intermuscular approach was effective in producing good 2-year outcome in patients with adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. This procedure may be considered as a less invasive alternative in the surgical treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Outcomes of autograft alone versus PEEK+ autograft interbody fusion in the treatment of adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis

ObjectivesBone resulting from a complete resection of the posterior arch can be cut into an autograft bone that contains the facet joint structure and morselised bone for interbody fusion. However, whether a strut autograft that contains this trimmed facet joint can produce the same clinical and radiographic outcomes as a cage for interbody fusion remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of a local facet joint autograft alone to those of polyetheretherketone (PEEK)+autograft for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Patients and methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 84 patients with single lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis who were treated with a local facet joint autograft alone (group A; n=44) or PEEK+autograft (group B; n=40) in PLIF with a minimum follow-up period of 24 months. Pain and disability were assessed using the visual analogue scale, Oswestry disability index and Kirkaldy-Willis criteria. In the radiological evaluation, disc height, slippage reduction, and fusion status were examined. Postoperative complications were also monitored. ResultsAt the last follow-up examination, 84.1% (37/44) of the patients in group A and 82.5% (33/40) of the patients in group B had a good outcome, and there were no significant differences between the two groups. Boh Methods led to significant improvements in disc height, and while PEEK+autograft produced a smaller loss in disc height, the difference was insignificant. The improvements in slippage and the fusion and complication rates between the two groups were similar. ConclusionThere were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes or radiographic improvements of both fusion methods in the treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. An autograft excised from a complete posterior arch containing a facet joint for interbody fusion is effective and affordable for treating isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Posterolateral instrumented fusion with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: A randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

Background:Spondylolisthesis is a common cause of surgery in patients with lower back pain. Although posterolateral fusion and pedicle screw fixation are a relatively common treatment method for the treatment of spondylolisthesis, controversy exists about the necessity of adding interbody fusion to posterolateral fusion. The aim of our study was to assess the functional disability, pain, and complications in patients with spondylolisthesis treated by posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in a randomized clinical trial.Materials and Methods:From February 2007 to February 2011, 50 adult patients with spondylolisthesis were randomly assigned to be treated with PLF or PLF+TLIF techniques (25 patients in each group) by a single surgeon. Back pain, leg pain, and disability were assessed before treatment and until 2 years after surgical treatment using visual analog scale (VAS) and oswestry disability index (ODI). Patients were also evaluated for postoperative complications such as infection, neurological complications, and instrument failure.Results:All patients completed the 24 months of follow-up. Twenty patients were females and 30 were males. Average age of the patients was 53 ± 11 years for the PLF group and 51 ± 13 for the PLF + TLIF group. Back pain, leg pain, and disability score were significantly improved postoperatively compared to preoperative scores (P < 0.001). At 3 months of follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in VAS score for back pain and leg pain in both groups; however, after 6 months and 1 year and 2 years follow-up, the reported scores for back pain and leg pain were significantly lower in the PLF+TLIF group (P < 0.05). The ODI score was also significantly lower in the PLF+TLIF group at 1 year and 2 years of follow-up (P < 0.05). One screw breakage and one superficial infection occurred in the PLF+TLIF group, which had no statistical significance (P = 0.373).Conclusion:It seems that accompanying TLIF with PLF might lead to better functional improvement and pain reduction in patients with spondylolisthesis.

Guideline Update: Diagnosis and Treatment of Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis

This article discusses recommendations made within the draft 2014 guideline update. Presenters reviewed the guideline development process and the current state of the evidence on natural history, diagnosis and imaging, medical and interventional treatment, surgical treatment, and the cost-effectiveness of treatment for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Current concepts on the sagittal balance and classification of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis

Treatment of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis remains a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons, neurosurgeons and paediatrics. In spondylolisthesis, it has been clearly demonstrated over the past decade that spino-pelvic morphology is abnormal and that it can be associated to an abnormal sacro-pelvic orientation as well as to a disturbed global sagittal balance of spine. This article presents the SDSG (Spinal Deformity Study Group) classification of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. The proper treatment of spondylolisthesis is dependent on recognizing the type of slip, sacro-pelvic balance and overall sagittal balance and its natural history. Although a number of clinical radiographic features have been identified as risk factors, their role as primary causative factors or secondary adaptative changes is not clear. The conservative treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis results in good outcome in the majority of cases. Of those patients who fail conservative treatment, success with surgery is quite good, with significant improvement in neurologic function in those patients with deficits, as well as improvement in patients with back pain.

Conceitos atuais sobre equilíbrio sagital e classificação da espondilólise e espondilolistese

Treatment of spondylolisis and spondylolisthesis remains a challenge for orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons and pediatrics. In Spondylolysthesis, it has been clearly demonstrated over the past decade that spino-pelvic morphology is abnormal and that it can be associated to an abnormal sacro-pelvic orientation as well as to a disturbed global sagitall balance of spine. This article presents the SDSG (Spinal Deformity Study Group) classification of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. The proper treatment of spondylolisthesis is dependent on recognizing the type of slip, sacro-pelvic balance and overall sagittal balance and its natural history. Although a number of clinical radiographic features have been identified as risk factors, their role as primary causative factors or secundary adaptative changes is not clear. The conservative treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis results in good outcome in the majority of cases. Of those patients that fail conservative treatment, success with surgery is quite good, with significant improvement in neurologic function in those patients with deficits, as well as improvement in patients with back pain.

What is the Optimum Fusion Technique for Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis—PLIF or PLF? A Long-Term Prospective Cohort Comparison Study

Long-term prospective observational cohort study. The objective of the study was to compare the long-term functional outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS). PLIF has the theoretical advantage of improving sagittal alignment and providing a larger, more consistent fusion mass in patients with IS compared with PLF. Studies to date though have not shown a clinical difference, with follow-up of 2 years. An prospective cohort study was performed of a single surgeon's patients with IS treated surgically over a 10-year period. Average follow-up was 7 years and 10 months. Preoperative patient characteristics between the 2 groups were not significantly different. The return rate of the long-term questionnaires was 83%. Outcome measures were the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS), Short Form (SF)-12v2, and SF-6D R2. PLIF provided better short-term and long-term results than PLF. The PLIF group had significantly better LBOS scores in the long term, and nonsignificantly better RMDQ scores. As measured by the RMDQ Minimal Clinically Important Difference set at 4 and 8, the LBOS Minimal Clinically Important Difference set at 7.5 points and by SF-12v2 Physical Component Score, PLIF patients performed better than PLF patients. When analyzing single-level fusions alone, the difference is more pronounced, with Physical Component Score, Mental Component Scores, and SF-6D R2 all being significantly better in the PLIF group rather than the PLF group. This study strongly supports the use of PLIF to obtain equivalent or superior clinical outcomes compared with PLF for spinal fusion for lumbar IS. Although there are considerable issues when commenting on the results of observational studies, the results of this study are the first to report long-term follow-up beyond 2 years, and further larger long-term randomized studies are suggested.

Maximizing Safety in the Management of Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis

Safe and effective management of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis begins with a thorough patient evaluation to determine the precise etiology of the patient's complaints and includes appropriate spinal imaging. As most cases of isthmic spondylolisthesis are asymptomatic, it is critical to rule out other sources of pain. Treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis requires a complete understanding of the deformity, which includes a global assessment of the patient's spine, consideration of pelvic parameters, and proper classification. Safe surgery for isthmic spondylolisthesis begins with comprehensive pre-operative planning as well as patient optimization for the operating room. Patients with adult isthmic spondylolisthesis, especially those with high-grade slips, present a variety of unique intra-operative challenges for the operating surgeon, many of which can be anticipated in advance. The most common perioperative complications include neurological injury and pseudarthrosis.

High-Grade Adult Isthmic L5–S1 Spondylolisthesis: A Report of Intraoperative Slip Progression Treated with Surgical Reduction and Posterior Instrumented Fusion

Adult isthmic spondylolisthesis most commonly occurs at the L5–S1 level of the lumbar spine. Slip progression is relatively rare in adults with this condition and slippage is typically associated with advanced degeneration of the disk below the pars defect. When symptomatic, radiculopathy is the typical complaint in adults with isthmic spondylolisthesis. When considering options for surgical treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis, the surgeon must consider several different options, such as decompression, fusion, instrumentation, reduction, and type of bone graft to be used. All of these decisions must be individualized as deemed appropriate for each particular patient. This report presents a case of intraoperative slip progression of a L5–S1 adult isthmic spondylolisthesis to a high-grade slip, which was treated with complete surgical reduction and posterior instrumented fusion. This case demonstrates the potential instability of this condition in adults and has not been previously reported. The case details and images are reviewed and the intraoperative decisions, treatment options, and patient outcome are discussed.

Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion in Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis

A prospective study with historical controls. To compare the outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. On theoretical grounds, PLIF has been suggested to result in an improved outcome compared with PLF. Data to support this view, however, are lacking. A total of 86 patients (age range, 18-55 years) with adult isthmic spondylolisthesis were operated on with PLIF. The comparison group consisted of 77 patients operated on with PLF with iliac bone autograft, 40 with and 37 without pedicle fixation. The 2 groups had similar socioeconomic, age and sex distribution, level of pain, and disability. Inclusion criteria and outcome measurements were identical in both groups. The PLIF group was operated on with autograft and carbon fiber ramps with pedicle fixation. Before surgery and at the 2-year follow-up, pain (VAS) and functional disability were quantified by the Disability Rating Index (DRI, 0-100) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The global outcome was assessed by the patient as much better, better, unchanged, or worse. The follow-up rate was 98% in the PLIF group and 97% in the PLF group. In PLIF patients, pain index improved from 66 to 35 (P < 0.0001) and the DRI from 47 to 30 (P < 0.01). The levels of pain and DRI were similar to that of the PLF group (pain 37, DRI 29, not significant), and the ODI was identical in both groups (25); 74% of the patients in both groups classified the results as much better or better. Type of fusion, PLIF or PLF, does not affect the 2-year outcome of surgical treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Despite the theoretical advantages of PLIF, no improvement on patient outcome compared with posterolateral fusion could be demonstrated, questioning the need of anterior support in short lumbar fusions.