Study of midterm outcome of spinal fusion in low grade spondylolisthesis
Keywords:Spondylolisthesis, Spinal fusion, Pedicle screw, Interbody fusion
Background: The objective of our study is to measure clinical and radiological outcome of spinal fusion in low grade spondylolisthesis at minimum 5 years following surgery.
Methods: Monocenteric prospective observational study was conducted to assess the mid-term outcome of spinal fusion in low grade spondylolisthesis with minimum 5 years following surgery in patients who underwent surgery from 2010 to 2015 in department of orthopaedics of Seth Nandlal Dhoot hospital, Aurangabad. Out of total 51 participants, there were 24 males and 27 females with mean age of 55.90 years of study participants. The patients were evaluated radiologically with AP and lateral X-rays views and dynamic flexion and extension views were taken and was evaluated with Lenke method and clinically with the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the physical component (Physical functioning) of SF-36 health survey at minimum 5 years following surgery.
Results: In our study we observed high spinal fusion rate of 96.1% and satisfactory improvement in clinical outcome at minimum 5 years following surgery in 51 study participants who underwent spinal fusion for low grade spondylolisthesis.
Conclusions: The spinal fusion in low grade spondylolisthesis is a safe, simple and less morbid approach with low complication rate. We observed 96.1% of spinal fusion rate and highly significant decrease in post-operative mean ODI score, mean SF-36 physical component and mean VAS score with 78.4% patient did not develop any complications. Spinal fusion provides better functional outcome by providing pain relief and improving the quality of life in the patients. Spinal fusion restores the normal sagittal balance of spine and maintains the disc space height and also provides better fusion rates.
Kalichman L, Kim DH, Li L, Guermazi A, Berkin V, Hunter DJ. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: prevalence and association with low back pain in the adult community-based population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(2):199-205.
Rosenberg NJ. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: predisposing factors. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 1975;57:467-74
Rowe GG, Roche MB. The etiology of separate neural arch. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 1953;35:102-10.
Nachemson A, Zdeblick TA, O'Brien JP. Lumbar disc disease with discogenic pain. What surgical treatment is most effective? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(15):1835-8.
Nachemson AL. Newest knowledge of low back pain. A critical look. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;(279):8-20.
Robaina-Padrón FJ. Controversies about instrumented surgery and pain relief in degenerative lumbar spine pain. Results of scientific evidence. Neurocirugia (Astur). 2007;18(5):406-13.
Pope MH. Biomechanics of the lumbar spine. Ann Med. 1989;21:347-51.
Kwon BK, Levicoff E, Vaccaro AR. Surgical management of lower back pain; Spine: core knowledge in orthopaedics 1st ed. 2005;104.
Shamrock AG, Donnally III CJ, Varacallo M. Lumbar Spondylolysis and Spondylolisthesis. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2020.
Watters WC 3rd, Bono CM, Gilbert TJ. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J. 2009;9(7):609-14.
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2257-70.
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1295-304.
Fischgrund APA, Jeffrey S, Michael M, Herkowitz HN, Richard B, David M, Lawrence TK. 1997 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective, Randomized Study Comparing Decompressive Laminectomy and Arthrodesis with and Without Spinal Instrumentation, Spine. 1997;22(24):2807-12.
Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL, Ditkoff JS. Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Long-Term Study Comparing Fusion and Pseudarthrosis, Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(7):726-33.
Yan DL, Pei FX, Li J, Soo CL. Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:1311-6.
Yehya A. TLIF versus PLIF in management of low-grade spondylolisthesis. Bull Alex Fac Med. 2010;46:127-33.
Khan R, Mandice CJ, Anandan H. Functional outcome of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lytic and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Int J Orthop Sci. 2018;4(3):165-8.
Kim MK, Lee SH, Kim ES, Eoh W, Chung SS, Lee CS.The impact of sagittal balance on clinical results after posterior interbody fusion for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a pilot study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:69
Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA. Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:382-7.
De Kunder SL, Rijkers K, Van Hemert WLW, Willems PLP, Ter Laak-Poort MP, Van Santbrink et al. Transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion as operative treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, a retrospective case series. Interdisciplinary Neurosurg: Adv Tech Case Management. 2016;5(1):64-8.
Suk KS, Jeon CH, Park MS, Moon SH, Kim NH, Lee HM. Comparison between posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw fixation and anterior interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Yonsei Med J. 2001;42(3):316-23.
Kim NH, Lee JW. Anterior Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion with Transpedicular Fixation for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis in Adults: A Comparison of Clinical Results. Spine. 1999;24(8):812-7.