Treatment Of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Research Articles

Effects of Cage Implantation Depth on Sagittal Parameters and Functional Outcomes in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of L4-L5 Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

In the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) with Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery, interbody fusion implants play a key role in supporting the vertebral body and facilitating fusion. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of implantation depth on sagittal parameters and functional outcomes in patients undergoing PLIF surgery. This study reviewed 128 patients with L4-L5 LDS between January 2016 and August 2019. All patients underwent an open PLIF surgery that included intravertebral decompression, implantation of pedicle screws and cage. We grouped according to the position of the center of the cage relative to the L5 vertebral endplate. Patients with the center of the cage located at the anterior 1/2 of the upper end plate of the L5 vertebral body were divided into Anterior group, and located at the posterior 1/2 of the upper end plate of the L5 vertebral body were divided into Posterior group. The lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT) and slope degree (SD) was measured for radiographic outcomes. We used the visual analog scale (VAS) and the oswestry disability index (ODI) score to assess functional outcomes. Paired t-test was used to compare imaging and bedside data before and after surgery between the two groups, and independent sample t-test, χ2 test and Fisher exact test were used to compare the data between the two groups. The mean follow-up of Anterior group was 44.13 ± 9.23 months, and Posterior group was 45.62 ± 10.29 months (P > 0.05). The LL, SL, PT, SS, SD and PI-LL after operation showed great improvements, relative to the corresponding preoperative values in both groups (P < 0.05). Compared to Posterior group, Anterior group exhibited far enhanced SL (15.49 ± 3.28 vs. 13.67 ± 2.53, P < 0.05), LL (53.47 ± 3.21 vs. 52.08 ± 3.15, P < 0.05) outcomes and showed depressed PI-LL (8.87 ± 5.05 vs. 10.73 ± 5.39, P < 0.05) outcomes at the final follow-up. Meanwhile, the SL in Anterior group (16.18 ± 3.99) 1 months after operation were also higher than in Posterior group (14.12 ± 3.57) (P < 0.05). We found that VAS and ODI at the final follow-up in Anterior group (3.62 ± 0.96, 25.19 ± 5.25) were significantly lower than those in Posterior group (4.12 ± 0.98, 27.68 ± 5.13) (P < 0.05). For patients with LDS, the anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of SL after PLIF surgery. Meanwhile, the anteriorly placed cage may achieve better sagittal parameters of LL and PI-LL and functional outcomes at the final follow-up.

Spine

The April 2024 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Lengthening behaviour of magnetically controlled growing rods in early-onset scoliosis: a multicentre study; LDL, cholesterol, and statins usage cause pseudarthrosis following lumbar interbody fusion; Decision-making in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5; Does the interfacing angle between pedicle screws and support rods affect clinical outcomes after posterior thoracolumbar fusion?; Returning to the grind: how workload influences recovery post-lumbar spine surgery; Securing the spine: a leap forward with s2 alar-iliac screws in adult spinal deformity surgery.

Differences in the surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis based on self-reported sex: analysis of the CSORN prospective DLS study.

Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) reliably improves patient-reported quality of life; however, patient population heterogeneity, in addition to other factors, ensures ongoing equipoise in choosing the ideal surgical treatment. Surgeon preference for fusion or decompression alone influences surgical treatment decision-making. Meanwhile, at presentation, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ considerably between females and males. The aims of this study were to determine whether there exists a difference in the rates of decompression and fusion versus decompression alone based on patient-reported sex, and to determine if widely accepted indications for fusion justify any observed differences or if surgeon preference plays a role. This study is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) DLS study, a multicentered Canadian prospective study, investigating the surgical management and outcome of DLS. Decompression and fusion rates, patient characteristics, preoperative PROMs, and radiographic measures were compared between males and females before and after propensity score matching. In the unmatched cohort, female patients were more likely to undergo decompression and fusion than male patients. Females were more likely to have the recognized indications for fusion, including kyphotic disc angle, higher spondylolisthesis grade and slip percentage, and patient-reported back pain. Other radiographic findings associated with the decision to fuse, including facet effusion, facet distraction, or facet angle, were not more prevalent in females. After propensity score matching for demographic and radiographic characteristics, similar proportions of male and female patients underwent decompression and fusion and decompression alone. Although it remains unclear who should or should not undergo fusion, in addition to surgical decompression of DLS, female patients undergo fusion at a higher rate than their male counterparts. After matching baseline radiographic factors indicating fusion, this analysis showed that the decision to fuse was not biased by sex differences. Rather, the higher proportion of females undergoing fusion is largely explained by the radiographic and clinical indications for fusion, suggesting that specific clinical and anatomical features of this condition are indeed different between sexes.

Use of the Scales software complex in planning the surgical treatment of patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis

The aim of the study was to develop a virtual software package that, when it is based on personalized indicators, allows planning surgical tactics and performing differentiated treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.The results of surgical treatment of retrospective group patients were the basis for creation of a virtual complex.A virtual software package has been developed. It is an expert system for making decisions about surgical tactics for patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. The operation of the program is based on the automated analysis of a given list of input parameters. The core of the virtual complex is represented by two configurations, one of which contains an artificial neural network. As a result of virtual processing of the patient’s individual parameters, the program gives an answer in the form of two color scales with numerical labels: a scale of differentiated choice between isolated decompression and decompression supplemented with posterior fusion; scales for a differentiated choice between laminectomy supplemented with medial facetectomy and bilateral decompression of the spinal canal from a unilateral approach. Using the developed software package, surgical treatment of 26 patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis was performed.The Scales virtual complex, based on key general somatic and clinical and radiological parameters of a patient, creates an opportunity for a surgeon to make the most balanced and informed decision on the tactics of surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. A personalized approach, accompanied by artificial intelligence technology, is aimed at reducing the likelihood of tactical errors and long-term complications of surgical interventions. The use of color scales with digital labels makes it possible to simplify the process of preoperative planning and to create conditions for achieving a balance between the decision of the program and the individual opinion of a specialist surgeon. The result of differentiated treatment of a group of patients using a virtual system was a significant and statistically significant ( p &lt; 0.001) improvement in the life quality of operated patients in the long-term period.

Spine

The October 2023 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Cutting through surgical smoke: the science of cleaner air in spinal operations; Unlocking success: key factors in thoracic spine decompression and fusion for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; Deep learning algorithm for identifying cervical cord compression due to degenerative canal stenosis on radiography; Surgeon experience influences robotics learning curve for minimally invasive lumbar fusion; Decision-making algorithm for the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5; Response to preoperative steroid injections predicts surgical outcomes in patients undergoing fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Sagittal alignment in operative degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a scoping review.

The benefit of surgical intervention over conservative treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients with neurologic symptoms is well-established. However, it is currently unclear what breadth of available evidence exists on regional and global sagittal alignment in DLS surgery. As such, the purpose of the current study is to conduct a scoping review to map and synthesize the DLS literature regarding the current radiographic assessment of sagittal spinal alignment in DLS surgery. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from January 1971 to January 2023 was performed for all DLS studies examining sagittal spinal alignment parameters with DLS surgery according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) protocol. From 2,222 studies, a total of 109 studies were included, representing 10,730 patients with an average age of 63.0 years old and average follow-up of 35.1 months postoperatively. Among included studies, 93 (85%), were largely published in the last decade and predominantly represented retrospective cohorts 70 (64%) or case series 22 (20%). A common theme among the reporting of radiographic parameters in the included investigations was the assessment of the magnitude and/or maintenance of a radiographic change postoperatively, with 92 (84%) studies reporting these findings. The majority of studies focused on index DLS level [33 (30%) studies] or lumbar spine radiographic imaging [33 (30%) studies] only. Thirty-seven (34%) studies reported spinopelvic parameters, with only 13 (12%) of included studies assessing 36-inch standing lateral radiographs and overall alignment. There is increasing prevalence of investigations assessing sagittal spinal alignment parameters in DLS surgery. Although, there is an increasing prevalence of studies investigating sagittal spinal alignment parameters in DLS surgery the quality of the currently available literature on this topic is of overall low evidence and largely retrospective in nature. Additionally, there is limited analysis of global sagittal spinal alignment in DLS suggesting that future investigational emphasis should prioritize longitudinally followed large prospective cohorts or multi-centre randomized controlled trials. Attempts at standardizing the radiographic and functional outcome reporting techniques across multi-centre investigations and prospective cohorts will allow for more robust, reproducible analyses of significance to be conducted on DLS patients.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) compared with unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a 2-year follow-up study

BackgroundOblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be an effective method of indirect decompression for the treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis (DLS). However, its superiority over Unilateral biportal endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ULIF) has not been reported yet. The current study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of OLIF and ULIF in patients with DLS.MethodsA total of 107 patients were included in this study, divided into two groups according to the surgical methods with 45 patients treated by OLIF combined with anterolateral single screwrod fixation, and 62 patients treated by ULIF. To compare the perioperative parameters (blood loss, operation time, and postop hospitalization) and clinical (the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores of the low back pain and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) and radiological (disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal) results of the two surgical approaches to evaluate their efficacy.ResultsCompared with the ULIF group, the blood loss and operation time in the OLIF-AF group were significantly reduced, and the Postop hospitalization was comparable. The VAS scores in both groups were significantly improved compared to preop; however, the VAS score of low back pain in the OLIF-AF group was superior to that in ULIF group throughout the follow-up period (P < 0.05). The improvements in DH, LL, and Segmental angle were significantly lower in the ULIF group, and the expansion rate of CSA in the OLIF-AF group was superior to that in the ULIF group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The fusion rate in OLIF-AF group was significantly higher than that in ULIF group within 6 mo postop, and there was no significant difference at the last follow-up. The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups, and there was no statistical difference.ConclusionsBoth OLIF-AF and ULIF achieved good short-term results in the treatment of DLS, and both surgical approaches are desirable. However, OLIF-AF has advantages over ULIF in terms of postoperative restoration of lumbar sagittal parameters and earlier intervertebral fusion. Long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to confirm this result.

Letter to the Editor Regarding the Paper of Shukla and Colleagues on Laminectomy With Fusion is Associated With Greater Functional Improvement Compared With Laminectomy Alone for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Letter to the Editor Regarding the Paper of Shukla and Colleagues on Laminectomy With Fusion is Associated With Greater Functional Improvement Compared With Laminectomy Alone for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Is Full-Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Superior to Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis? A Retrospective Study.

In this study, we evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Fifty-three patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical techniques: Full endoscopic (Endo)-TLIF (n = 25) and TLIF (n = 28). Clinical efficacy was evaluated pre- and postoperatively. The operation time, operative blood loss, postoperative amount of serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK), postoperative drainage volume, postoperative hospital stay time, total cost, and operative complications were also recorded. Compared with the TLIF group, the Endo-TLIF group had similar intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative increased CPK, less postoperative drainage volume, and shorter postoperative hospital stay, but longer operative time and higher total cost. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores of back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores significantly improved compared with the preoperative scores in both two groups; more significant improvement of postoperative VAS scores of back pain and ODI scores were shown in the Endo-TLIF group at the 1-month follow-up (p < 0.05). No difference was found in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups. The Endo-TLIF has similar clinical effect compared with the TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. It also has many surgical advantages such as less muscle trauma, less postoperative back pain, and fast functional recovery of the patient. However, steep learning curve, longer operative time, and higher total cost may be the disadvantages that limit this technique. Also, the Endo-TLIF treatment of patients with bilateral lateral recess stenosis is considered a relative contraindication.

Progression to fusion after lumbar laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: Rate and risk-factors. A national database study

ObjectiveLumbar laminectomy is often utilized in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Risk factors that contribute to reoperation rates, in particular to progression to fusion, are poorly understood. We aimed to identify rate and risk factors of lumbar fusion surgery following lumbar laminectomy for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal spondylolisthesis. MethodsOur sample was obtained from the national MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. We reviewed patients undergoing lumbar laminectomy for stable degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (Grade-1) at one or two levels between January 2007 and December 2016. ResultsA total of 33,681 patients were included. By 2 years after the index operation, 2.48 % of patients had required lumbar fusion surgery. Female sex was associated with lower odds (OR 0.8, 95 %CI 0.7–0.9) of reoperation for fusion. Diabetes (OR 1.2, 95 %CI 1.1–1.4), rheumatoid arthritis (OR 1.5, 95 %CI 1.2–1.7) and clinical presentation with LBP (OR 2.1, 95 %CI 1.6–2.9), lower extremity weakness (OR 1.4, 95 %CI 1.1–1.5), as well as occurrence of a postoperative neurological complications (OR 2.0, 95 %CI 1.1–3.4) increased the odds ratio for requiring fusion surgery within two years after lumbar laminectomy. ConclusionIn this large cross-sectional sample of a national claims database consisting of lumbar laminectomy patients for the treatment of spondylolisthesis, approximately 2.5 % required subsequent lumbar fusion. Several modifiable risk factors for fusion progression were identified, which may guide clinicians in shared decision-making and to help identify patients with elevated post-operative risk providing potential leverage point for prevention.

Expandable versus static cages in unilateral biportal endoscopy lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS): comparison of clinical and radiological results

BackgroundIn recent years, early rehabilitation after spinal fusion and the recovery of physiological curvature have attracted much attention. Therefore, expandable cages have entered the field of vision of scientists. The goal of the current study was to compare the clinical and radiological results of unilateral portal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with expandable versus static cages.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed patients who received ULIF treatment for DLS from May 2019 to February 2021. Patients were categorized by cage type (static vs. expandable), and the main study was the preop and postop clinical and radiological index changes of the patients.ResultsEighty-four patients were included (38 in the static cages group; 46 in the expandable cages group). There was no difference in the preop results between the two groups. The VAS scores for low back and leg pain and ODI scores in the expandable cages group 7 d postop were significantly superior to those in the static cages group (P < 0.05), and the segmental angle and PDH in the expandable cages group postop were significantly higher than those in the static cages group (P < 0.05). The fusions at 6 m postop in the expandable cages group were superior to those in the Static Cages group (P < 0.05).ConclusionsThe results of this study showed that compared with the stable cage group, the expandable cage group had unique advantages in restoring the physiological curvature of the lumbar spine, increasing the fusion rate, and relieving pain in the early postoperative period. ULIF can be used to treat single-segment, mild lumbar spondylolisthesis patients using expandable cages instead of static cages.

Decision-making Algorithm for the Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis of L4/L5.

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. To report the decision-making process for decompression alone (DA) and decompression and fusion (DF) at a tertiary orthopedic center and compare the operative outcomes between both groups. Controversy exists around the optimal operative treatment for DLS, either with DF or DA. Although previous studies tried to establish specific indications, clinical decision-making algorithms are needed. Patients undergoing spinal surgery for DLS at L4/5 were retrospectively analyzed. A survey of spine surgeons was performed to identify factors influencing surgical decision-making, and their association with the surgical procedure was tested in the clinical data set. We then developed a clinical score based on the statistical analysis and survey results. The predictive capability of the score was tested in the clinical data set with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. To evaluate the clinical outcome, two years follow-up postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), postoperative low back pain (LBP) (Numeric Analog Scale), and patient satisfaction were compared between the DF and DA groups. A total of 124 patients were included in the analysis; 66 received DF (53.2%) and 58 DA (46.8%). Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative ODI, LBP, or satisfaction. The degree of spondylolisthesis, facet joint diastasis and effusion, sagittal disbalance, and severity of LBP were identified as the most important factors for deciding on DA or DF. The area under the curve of the decision-making score was 0.84. At a cutoff of three points indicating DF, the accuracy was 80.6%. The two-year follow-up data showed that both groups showed similar improvement in ODI after both procedures, validating the respective decision. The developed score shows excellent predictive capabilities for the decision processes of different spine surgeons at a single tertiary center and highlights relevant clinical and radiographic parameters. Further studies are needed to assess the external applicability of these findings.

Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation with Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Instability

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) in patients with L4-L5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with instability. The clinical data of 27 patients with L4-L5 DLS who underwent PE-TLIF from September 2019 to April 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. A minimum of 12months of follow-up visits was provided to all patients. The demographics, perioperative, and clinical outcomes were reviewed based on the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. Brantigan criteria estimated the result of interbody fusion at 12months. The mean age was 70.70±8.91 (55-83) years. The mean±standard deviation values of the preoperative visual analog scale for back pain, leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index were 7.37±1.01, 7.26±0.94, and 66.22±7.49, respectively. The values improved to 1.66±0.62, 1.74±0.52, and 19.55±5.56 at 12months postoperatively (P ＜ 0.05). The modified MacNab criteria revealed that 88.89% (24/27) of patients achieved good-to-excellent outcomes. The interbody fusion rate was 100% at the final follow-up. In patients with L4-L5 DLS with instability, PE-TLIF under conscious sedation and local anesthesia could be an effective supplement for open decompression and fusion.

Laminectomy With Fusion is Associated With Greater Functional Improvement Compared With Laminectomy Alone for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Systematic review and Meta-analysis. To compare outcomes and complications profile of laminectomy alone versus laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common cause of back pain and functional impairment. DLS is associated with high monetary (up to $100 billion annually in the US) and nonmonetary societal and personal costs. While nonoperative management remains the first-line treatment for DLS, decompressive laminectomy with or without fusion is indicated for the treatment-resistant disease. We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for RCTs and cohort studies from inception through April 14, 2022. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute risk of bias tool. We generated odds ratio and standard mean difference estimates for select parameters. A total of 23 manuscripts were included (n=90,996 patients). Complication rates were higher in patients undergoing laminectomy and fusion compared with laminectomy alone (OR: 1.55, P <0.001). Rates of reoperation were similar between both groups (OR: 0.67, P =0.10). Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a longer duration of surgery (Standard Mean Difference: 2.60, P =0.04) and a longer hospital stay (2.16, P =0.01). Compared with laminectomy alone, the extent of functional improvement in pain and disability was superior in the laminectomy and fusion cohort. Laminectomy with fusion had a greater mean change in ODI (-0.38, P <0.01) compared with laminectomy alone. Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a greater mean change in NRS leg score (-0.11, P =0.04) and NRS back score (-0.45, P <0.01). Compared with laminectomy alone, laminectomy with fusion is associated with greater postoperative improvement in pain and disability, albeit with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Clinical efficacy of midline lumbar interbody fusion arthrodesis with neuronavigation-guided cortical bone trajectory screws in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis:a prospective randomized controlled trial

Introduction. Currently, the standard treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis involves pedicle screw fixation to enhance the success of intervertebral fusion. The traditional pedicle screw techniques require extensive lateral muscle dissection, resulting in significantly increased surgical-related morbidity. To address some of these shortcomings, the Midline Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIDLIF®) technique has recently been developed. It involves the combination of the cortical bone trajectory screw fixation of the spine with intervertebral cage placement to achieve a solid interbody fusion. So far, the clinical efficacy of the MIDLIF technique in the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis is still unknown. All existing publications are studies with a low level of relevance or scientific evidence. Materials and methods. A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2017 and 2022. The study analyzed the clinical and radiological effectiveness of the MIDLIF arthrodesis technique compared to the traditional lumbar interbody fusion techniques, used exclusively in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Results. The study enrolled 112 eligible patients with degenerative low-grade spondylolisthesis, randomly assigned into two groups. At 1 year post-operatively, MIDLIF provided a significantly better improvement in postoperative relief of low back pain and radiating pain, as well as a significantly better functional recovery. Additionally, MIDLIF resulted in lower surgical morbidity compared to traditional fusion techniques. Conclusions. The success rate of MIDLIF arthrodesis is similar to that associated with traditional fusion techniques. At the same time, MIDLIF offers all the specific benefits of a minimally invasive approach, such as less postoperative pain, faster functional recovery, less bleeding, and fewer blood transfusions. Thus, MIDLIF might be a good alternative to the traditional intervertebral fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative low-grade spondylolisthesis.

Comparison of 270-degree percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of geriatric lateral recess stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

PurposeVarious lumbar decompression techniques have been used for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Few studies have compared the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lateral recess stenosis associated with DLS (LRS-DLS) in geriatric patients. The objective of the study was to compare the safety and short-term clinical efficacy of 270-degree PTED under local anesthesia and MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LRS-DLS in Chinese geriatric patients over 60 years old.Materials and methodsFrom January 2017 to August 2019, the data of 90 consecutive geriatric patients with single-level L4-5 LRS-DLS were retrospectively reviewed, including those in the PTED group (n = 44) and MIS-TLIF group (n = 46). The patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were reviewed before and after surgery. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. X-ray examinations were performed 1 year after surgery to assess the progression of spondylolisthesis in the PTED group and bone fusion in the MIS-TLIF group.ResultsThe mean patient ages in the PTED and MIS-TLIF groups were 70.3 years and 68.6 years, respectively. Both the PTED and MIS-TLIF groups demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS score for leg pain and ODI score, and no significant differences were found between the groups at any time point (P > 0.05). Although the good-to-excellent rate of the modified MacNab criteria in the PTED group was similar to that in the MIS-TLIF group (90.9% vs. 91.3%, P > 0.05), PTED was advantageous in terms of the operative time, estimated blood loss, incision length, drainage time, drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and complications.ConclusionsBoth PTED and MIS-TLIF led to favorable outcomes in geriatric patients with LRS-DLS. In addition, PTED caused less severe trauma and fewer complications. In terms of perioperative quality-of-life and clinical outcomes, PTED could supplement MIS-TLIF in geriatric patients with LRS-DLS.

Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses...

Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: Effect of TLIF and slip reduction on sagittal alignment

IntroductionThe surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of adding transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to posterolateral fusion (PLF) on the local lordosis, sagittal alignment and potential complications. The second aim was to evaluate the effect of slip reduction on the same parameters. HypothesisThe initial hypothesis was that TLIF provides better correction of the local lordosis and that reducing the slip improves the global sagittal balance. MethodsIn this retrospective, single-center study, patients who had been operated on for LSD at one or two levels by laminectomy and PLF, with or without a TLIF cage, were included. Data collected consisted of age, sex, number of levels fused and whether or not a TLIF cage was used. Fusion was defined as the absence of indirect nonunion signs on radiographs at 2 years postoperative. The occurrence and time frame of any complications and the need for reoperation were documented. Lateral radiographs of the entire spine were analyzed preoperatively, in the early postoperative period (3 to 6 months) and at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The following parameters were measured: pelvic parameters, C7 sagittal tilt (C7ST), spinosacral angle (SSA), maximum lumbar lordosis (LL), lordosis at slipped level (LS), slip percentage. The analysis compared patients treated by PLF and TLIF and determined the impact of slip reduction. ResultsOne hundred and three patients were included in the study (71% women). The mean follow-up was 38 months. The mean age was 69 years. Seventy-seven patients (75%) underwent PLF. Comparing the preoperative and early postoperative data identified 5.4% better spondylolisthesis reduction in the TLIF group than the PLF group (−8.9±9.5% vs −3.5±7.6%; p=0.04) that was not maintained at the final follow-up. The fusion rate was comparable between groups: 94% in APL and 89% in TLIF (p=0.7). The overall complication rate was 46% in the TLIF group versus 33% in the PLF group (p=0.35). A comparison based on whether or not the slip was reduced found significant improvement in the reduction group of the SSA by more than 6° (6.8°±6° vs 0.5°±7.4°; p=0.04). The fusion rate was 91% in the reduced group and 95% in the non-reduced group (p=0.81); the complication rate was 44% versus 28% in the non-reduced group (p=0.10). ConclusionThis study shows that slip reduction helps to improve the sagittal alignment by increasing the SSA when treating LDS. Posterolateral fusion and TLIF produce comparable radiographic outcomes at 2 years postoperative in the segmental lordosis, slip reduction, global sagittal alignment and fusion rate. Level of evidenceIV.

Decision-making algorithm for the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5

Decision-making algorithm for the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5

Factors associated with the choice of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis in daily clinical practice

Factors associated with the choice of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis in daily clinical practice