Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Changes in Surgical Indications and Comparison of Instrumented Fusion With Two Surgical Decompression Procedures

Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments.

METHODS

The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria.

RESULTS

The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: review of current classifications and proposal of a novel classification system

PURPOSE

To review existing classification systems for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), propose a novel classification designed to better address clinically relevant radiographic and clinical features of disease, and determine the inter- and intraobserver reliability of this new system for classifying DS.

METHODS

The proposed classification system includes four components: 1) segmental dynamic instability, 2) location of spinal stenosis, 3) sagittal alignment, and 4) primary clinical presentation. To establish the reliability of this system, 12 observers graded 10 premarked test cases twice each. Kappa values were calculated to assess the inter- and intraobserver reliability for each of the four components separately.

RESULTS

Interobserver reliability for dynamic instability, location of stenosis, sagittal alignment, and clinical presentation was 0.94, 0.80, 0.87, and 1.00, respectively. Intraobserver reliability for dynamic instability, location of stenosis, sagittal alignment, and clinical presentation were 0.91, 0.88, 0.87, and 0.97, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The UCSF DS classification system provides a novel framework for assessing DS based on radiographic and clinical parameters with established implications for surgical treatment. The almost perfect interobserver and intraobserver reliability observed for all components of this system demonstrates that it is simple and easy to use. In clinical practice, this classification may allow subclassification of similar patients into groups that may benefit from distinct treatment strategies, leading to the development of algorithms to help guide selection of an optimal surgical approach. Future work will focus on the clinical validation of this system, with the goal of providing for more evidence-based, standardized approaches to treatment and improved outcomes for patients with DS.

The Impact of Frailty on Surgical Outcome of Patients with Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis

Introduction

Frailty is an important factor in surgical outcomes. The current study aimed to evaluate the effect of preoperative frailty on postoperative outcomes in older patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS).

Methods

We retrospectively examined 209 patients aged ≥65 years who underwent surgery for LSCS. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) tools, including the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), were used in the assessment conducted before surgery and at 6 months and 1 year after surgery. Frailty was categorized based on the 11-item modified frailty index (mFI-11). Patients with mFI-11 of 0, <0.21, and >0.21 were classified under the robust (R), pre-frailty (P), and frailty (F) groups, respectively.

Results

According to the mFI-11, 24, 138, and 47 patients were included in the R, P, and F groups, respectively. Regarding preoperative radiographic parameters, there was a remarkable increase in the sagittal vertical axis and a significant decrease in the development of lumbar lordosis with frailty progression. The preoperative scores of RDQ and ZCQ, and lumbar function, walking ability, social life, and psychological disorder domain scores of JOABPEQ differed significantly among these groups. The frequency of revision surgery was not higher in the F group than in the other groups. After adjustment for factors have shown different distributions among the three groups, the frequency of effective surgical cases did not show a clear trend among the three groups in all domains of the JOABPEQ.

Conclusions

The preoperative HRQOL scores and the radiographic parameters of patients with LSCS worsened with frailty severity. However, frailty did not affect the rate of revision surgery and surgical efficacy in patients with LSCS. Although this study has limitations, our findings indicated that even LSCS patients with frailty can be considered for surgery if they have an indication for LSCS surgery.

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

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

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.

BACKGROUND

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.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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%.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of lumbar spinal stenosis, 2021 - Secondary publication

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) guideline for the management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) was first published in 2011. Since then, the medical care system for LSS has changed and many new articles regarding the epidemiology and diagnostics of LSS, conservative treatments such as new pharmacotherapy and physical therapy, and surgical treatments including minimally invasive surgery have been published. In addition, various issues need to be examined, such as verification of patient-reported outcome measures, and the economic effect of revised medical management of patients with lumbar spinal disorders. Accordingly, in 2019 the JOA clinical guidelines committee decided to update the guideline and consequently established a formulation committee. The purpose of this study was to describe the formulation we implemented for the revision of the guideline, incorporating the recent advances of evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

The JOA LSS guideline formulation committee revised the previous guideline based on the method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan proposed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service in 2017. Background and clinical questions were determined followed by a literature search related to each question. Appropriate articles based on keywords were selected from all the searched literature. Using prepared structured abstracts, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed. The strength of evidence and recommendations for each clinical question was decided by the committee members.

RESULTS

Eight background and 15 clinical questions were determined. Answers and explanations were described for the background questions. For each clinical question, the strength of evidence and the recommendation were both decided, and an explanation was provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of LSS was completed according to the latest evidence-based medicine. We expect that this guideline will be useful for all medical providers as an index in daily medical care, as well as for patients with LSS.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Low-Grade Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort comparison study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes, radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (MIS-ULBD) versus MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

While lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common condition, optimal surgical treatment remains controversial. Newer MIS techniques, which preserve bone, paraspinal musculature, and posterior midline stabilizers, are thought to reduce the risk of iatrogenic instability and may obviate the need for fusion. However, few comparative studies of MIS techniques for low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis currently exist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with low-grade (Meyerding grade I or II) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with single-level MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF were identified retrospectively from a prospectively collected spine surgery registry from April 2017 to November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, radiographic data, and PROMs were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 188 patients underwent either MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF (79 MIS-ULBD and 109 MIS-TLIF). Patients who underwent MIS-ULBD tended to be older, had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower mean percentage back pain, higher percentage of L4/L5 pathology, shorter operative time, lower estimated blood loss, and lower postoperative pain ( P <0.05). In both groups, there were statistically significant improvements at one year for five of the six PROMs studied: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS)-back pain, VAS-leg pain, Short Form 12 Physical Component Score (SF12-PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) ( P <0.05). On multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, there were no associations between procedure type and achieving minimal clinically important difference at one year in any of the PROMs studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests that both MIS-ULBD and MIS-TLIF result in significant improvements in pain and physical function for patients with low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCES

3.

Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Patients With Movement-related Low Back Pain Have Less Postoperative Satisfaction After Decompression Alone

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected multicenter observational data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to examine the preoperative factors affecting postoperative satisfaction following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and microendoscopic muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (ME-MILD) in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The technique involved in DLS surgery may either be decompression alone or decompression-fixation. Poor performance may occur after either of these surgical treatments. The author hypothesized that evaluating the correlation between preoperative quality of life and postoperative performance would aid in determining the optimal procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 138 patients who underwent surgery for 1-level mild DLS. The authors performed PLIF for 79 patients and ME-MILD for 59 patients. When the satisfaction subscale of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire exceeded 2 points, postoperative satisfaction was considered poor. The clinical characteristics were investigated. Responses to preoperative health-related quality of life questionnaires, such as the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), short form-36 health survey (SF-36), and visual analog scale, were compared between the satisfied and unsatisfied groups.

RESULTS

In the PLIF group, no endogenous factors influenced postoperative satisfaction. The ME-MILD cohort's satisfied and unsatisfied patients differed significantly in terms of preoperative lumbar spine dysfunction ( P <0.001) items of the JOABPEQ, role physical ( P =0.03), and role emotional ( P =0.03) items of the SF-36. A strong correlation ( r =-0.609 P =0.015) was found between preoperative lumbar spine dysfunction and postoperative satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ME-MILD group, preoperative lumbar spine function was correlated with postoperative satisfaction. Decompression alone may be ineffective in cases with decreased lumbar spine function prior to surgery. The degree of low back pain on movement should be considered before selecting the surgical method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Decompression alone or decompression and fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

Clinically, there are substantive practice variations in surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. We aimed at evaluating whether decompression alone outcomes for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis are comparable to those of decompression with fusion.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 16th, 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing decompression alone with decompression and fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included in this study. There were no language limitations. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results in the random-effects model. Main outcomes included Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain, clinical satisfaction, complication and reoperation rates. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022310645).

FINDINGS

Thirty-three studies (6 RCTs and 27 cohort studies) involving 94 953 participants were included. Differences in post-operative ODI between decompression alone and decompression with fusion were not significant. A small difference for back (MD, 0.13; [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.18]; I ²:0.00%) and leg pain (MD, 0.30; [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.51]; I ²:48.35%) was observed on the 3rd post-operative month. The results did not reveal significant differences in leg pain and back pain between decompression alone and fusion groups on the 6th, 12th, and 24th post-operative months. Difference in clinical satisfaction between decompression alone and decompression with fusion were not significant from RCTs (OR, 0.26; [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.92]; I ²:83.27%). Complications (OR, 1.54; [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.05]; I ²:48.88%), operation time (MD, 83.39; [95% CI, 55.93 to 110.85]; I ²:98.75%), intra-operative blood loss (MD, 264.58; [95% CI, 174.99 to 354.16]; I ²:95.61%) and length of hospital stay (MD, 2.85; [95% CI, 1.60 to 4.10]; I ²:99.49%) were higher with fusion.

INTERPRETATION

Clinical effectiveness of decompression alone was comparable to that of decompression with fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Decompression alone is recommended for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

FUNDING

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81871818), Tangdu Hospital Seed Talent Program (Fei-Long Wei), Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (No.2019JM-265) and Social Talent Fund of Tangdu Hospital (No.2021SHRC034).

Comparison between Decompression Alone and with Additional Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis affects approximately 10% of adults over 40. Although decompression has been the treatment of choice, some surgeons note possible instability development after decompression alone (D). Previous studies show that decompression with fusion (DF) has similar complication rates but is better at preventing slip progression and reducing pain. However, others stated the additional instrumentation does not result in superior functional outcomes and has higher costs and complication rates. This study aims to provide an objective, two-arm comparison of the two treatments using systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

The study design was a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized comparative studies. A systematic search was conducted from April 2021 to September 2021 to identify relevant studies using PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases based on PRISMA guidelines.

Results

This systematic review included 8 studies (6,669 patients); 7 (6,569 patients) were included in the meta-analysis, with a follow-up period of up to 143 months. The most commonly affected level was L4-5, with females being more affected than males. Visual Analog Scale improvement on back pain was significantly better in DF group (Heterogeneity, I²=32%; WMD -0.72; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), -1.35 to -0.08; P=0.03), as well as postoperative back pain (I²=96%; WMD 0.87; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.55; P=0.01). The leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), satisfaction rate, complication rate, and revision rate were comparable between the two procedures.

Conclusions

Current systematic review and meta-analysis proved that DF is better than D in terms of back pain improvement, and the two procedures are comparable in terms of leg pain, ODI, satisfaction rate, complication rate, and revision rate.

Risk Factors for Reoperation at Same Level after Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Patients with Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis Extended to the Lumbar Segments

Introduction

Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) extended to the lumbar segments (L-DISH) reportedly has adverse effects on the surgical outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, the risk factors in patients with L-DISH have not been clarified. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term risk factors for reoperation at the same level after decompression surgery alone for LSS in patients with L-DISH in a retrospective cohort study.

Methods

A postoperative postal survey was sent to 1,150 consecutive patients who underwent decompression surgery alone for LSS from 2002 to 2010. Among all respondents, patients who exhibited L-DISH by preoperative total spine X-ray were included in this study. We investigated risk factors for reoperation at the same level as the initial surgery among various demographic and radiological parameters, including the lumbar ossification condition and computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging findings.

Results

A total of 57 patients were analyzed. Reoperations at the same level as that of the index surgery were performed in 10 patients (17.5%) and at 11 levels within a mean of 9.2 years. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis indicated that the independent risk factors for reoperation were a sagittal rotation angle ≥10° (adjusted hazard ratio: 5.17) and facet opening on CT (adjusted hazard ratio: 4.82). Neither sagittal translation nor the ossification condition in the lumbar segments affected reoperations.

Conclusions

A sagittal rotation angle ≥10° and facet opening on preoperative CT were risk factors for reoperation at the same level as that of the index surgery in patients with L-DISH. The surgical strategy should be carefully considered in those patients.

Lumbar Decompression and Interbody Fusion Improves Gait Performance, Pain, and Psychosocial Factors of Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate changes in gait, pain, and psychosocial factors among degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients before and 3 months after surgical intervention.

METHODS

Forty-four symptomatic DLS patients performed clinical gait analysis 1 week before surgery and 3 months after surgery. Patients performed a series of over-ground gait trials at a self-selected speed. Twenty-two matched asymptomatic controls underwent the same battery of tests. Three-dimensional motion tracking was used to analyze gait kinematics. Patient-reported outcomes, gait range of motion, and spatiotemporal parameters compared before and after lumbar decompression with fusion.

RESULTS

Surgical intervention resulted in significant improvements in walking speed (P = .021), stride time (P = .020), step time (P = .014), and single-support time (P = .038). Significant improvements in joint range-of-motion were found for knee (P = .002) and hip flexion (P = .006). Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis patients reported significant reductions in pain, disability, and improved psychological perceptions for fear-avoidance of pain and motion (all P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatment of DLS resulted in a faster, more efficient gait in addition to significant reductions in pain, disability, and psychological fear associated with pain and motion. These beneficial changes that we identified early in the postoperative period indicate that patients return to the quality of life they seek early on. Clinical gait analysis provides objective, quantifiable measures of gait parameters that provide new insight into both the preoperative disability associated with DLS and into the early postoperative function of patients during their rehabilitation.

Facet Joint Replacement: Intermediate- and Long-Term Outcome in a Large Case Series

BACKGROUND

 The long-term outcome of facet joint replacement (FJR) still is to be proven.

METHODS

 We present a prospective case series of 26 (male-to-female ratio of 1:1; mean age: 61 years) patients undergoing FJR with a follow-up of at least 1 year (range: 12-112; mean: 67 months). Visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) were applied pre- and postoperatively (after 3, 6, and 12 months) as well as at the last follow-up (N = 24). Using X-rays of the lumbar spine (N = 20), the range of motion (ROM) and disk height in the indicator and adjacent levels were assessed.

RESULTS

 FJR was performed at L3/L4 (N = 7), L4/L5 (N = 17), and L5/S1 (N = 2). Mean VAS (mm) for back pain decreased from 71 to 18, mean VAS for right leg pain from 61 to 7, and from 51 to 3 for the left leg. Mean ODI dropped from 51 to 22% (for all p < 0.01). Eighty seven percent of patients were satisfied and pretreatment activities were completely regained in 78.3% of patients. Disk height at the indicator and adjacent levels and ROM at the indicator segment and the entire lumbar spine were preserved. No loosening of implants was observed. Explantation of FJR and subsequent fusion had to be performed in four cases (15.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

 In selected cases, long-term results of FJR show good outcome concerning pain, quality of life, preservation of lumbar spine motion, and protection of adjacent level.

Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: When to Fuse and When Not to? A New Scoring System

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop a scoring system for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) that would guide decision-making.

BACKGROUND

The management protocol for LDS has been under debate, with no guidelines. Most studies oversimplify LDS as a homogenous entity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 131 patients who underwent surgery for LDS between July 2007 and October 2011 with a minimum follow-up of 3 years was carried out on the basis of clinical, radiologic, and technical factors. A scoring system was conceptualized. Clinical: back pain score-2, age younger than 70 years-1, high-demand activity-1. Radiologic: segmental kyphosis-1.5, segmental dynamic translation-1, disk height >50% of adjacent level-1, facet effusion-1, sagittal facet-orientation-1. Technical: feasibility to decompress without causing instability-1.5. Its reliability was ascertained by a univariate analysis. The benchmark was set at 5.5 according to the Youden Index. This was followed by a prospective study for reliability analysis between November 2011 and January 2017 of 52 patients who underwent stand-alone decompression in LDS with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Outcomes were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index and the Visual Analog Scale. Interobserver variability was determined. None of the patients in the retrospective or prospective group had undergone any lumbar surgery previously.

RESULTS

The mean Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale of both the groups in the retrospective and the stand-alone decompression groups in prospective studies showed significant improvement. The interobserver reliability was high, with a κ value of 0.847.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed scoring system helps view LDS as a heterogenous condition and assists in tailoring treatment for individual patients. For a select subgroup of patients with LDS, minimally invasive decompression (unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression using a minimally invasive surgery tubular retractor system) without fusion is adequate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Management of spondylolisthesis using MIS techniques: Recent advances

The authors discuss the recent advances in the understanding and management of spondylolisthesis. The two most common kinds of spondylolisthesis - Degenerative and Spondylolytic types have been elaborated in this paper, with the understanding that similar management principles can be applied to the other lesser common varieties. The impetus has been on application of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment as well as renewed interest in stand-alone decompression in degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Comparative Effectiveness of Microdecompression Alone vs Decompression Plus Instrumented Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

IMPORTANCE

Conflicting evidence and large practice variation are present in the surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. More than 90% of surgical procedures in the United States include instrumented fusion compared with 50% or less in other countries.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the effectiveness of microdecompression alone is noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion in a real-world setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter comparative effectiveness study with a noninferiority design assessed prospective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. From September 19, 2007, to December 21, 2015, 1376 patients at 35 Norwegian orthopedic and neurosurgical departments underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis without scoliosis. After excluding patients undergoing laminectomy alone, fusion without instrumentation, or surgery in more than 2 levels and those with a former operation at the index level, 794 patients were included in the analyses, regardless of missing or incomplete follow-up data, before propensity score matching. Data were analyzed from March 20 to October 30, 2018.

EXPOSURES

Microdecompression alone or decompression with instrumented fusion.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

A reduction from baseline of 30% or greater in the Oswestry Disability Index at 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 570 patients (413 female [72%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [9.5] years) were included for comparison, with 285 undergoing microdecompression (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.8] years; 205 female [72%]) and 285 undergoing decompression with instrumented fusion (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [9.2] years; 208 female [73%]). The proportion of each type of procedure varied between departments. However, changes in outcome scores varied within patients but not between departments. The proportion of patients with improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index of at least 30% was 150 of 219 (68%) in the microdecompression group and 155 of 215 (72%) in the instrumentation group. The 95% CI (-12% to 5%) for the difference of -4% was above the predefined margin of noninferiority (-15%). Microdecompression alone was associated with shorter operation time (mean [SD], 89 [44] vs 180 [65] minutes; P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (mean [SD], 2.5 [2.4] vs 6.4 [3.0] days; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, the clinical effectiveness of microdecompression alone was noninferior to that of decompression with instrumented fusion. Microdecompression alone was also associated with shorter durations of surgery and hospital stay, supporting the suggestion that the less invasive procedure should be considered for most patients.

Complications rate of and risk factors for the unplanned reoperation of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in elderly patients: a retrospective single-Centre cohort study of 33 patients

Background

The study was to investigate the complications rate of and risk factors for unplanned reoperation among elderly patients who underwent posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

Methods

A total of 1100 DLS patients who were older than 60 years were reviewed from January 2006 to December 2016. 33 patients underwent unplanned reoperations and were analysed and divided into two groups (group A: posterolateral fusion, 650 patients; group B: intervertebral fusion, 450 patients). Sex, body mass index (BMI), radiographic data and clinical outcome data were analysed to evaluate the complications rate of and the risk factors for unplanned reoperations.

Results

A total of 33 patients underwent unplanned reoperations (3%). The patients were followed up for an average of 4.20 ± 2.25 years (group A) and 4.32 ± 2.54 years (group B) without a significant difference. Significant differences were found in mean age, levels of involvement, hospital stay, surgery time, and blood loss between the groups. The causes of unplanned operation were wound infection, screw misplacement, neurological deficit, nonunion, and screw fracture, which were significant except for wound infection between the groups. Higher BMI (obesity), diabetes mellitus (DM), more bleeding and sex (female) were risk factors for complications. Cases of screw misplacement, neurological deficit, nonunion and screw fracture in group A were more significant than those in group B.

Conclusion

Patients with higher BMI, DM, older age, posterolateral fusion, and female sex predicted a higher incidence of unplanned reoperations. Spine surgeons may need to pay more attention to their preoperative training and to improving surgical techniques that could reduce the reoperation rate.

Comparison of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Microendoscopic Muscle-preserving Interlaminar Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With >5-Year Follow-up

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected observational multicenter data.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical results and rates of revision surgery after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and microendoscopic muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (ME-MILD) in patients with single-level, mild degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) and follow-up of at least 5 years.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgery for symptomatic DLS remains controversial. Evaluating long-term results may reveal problems such as adjacent segmental diseases of the PLIF and decreased quality of life because of slippage and restenosis of the ME-MILD.

METHODS

We enrolled 116 patients who underwent PLIF (79 patients) or ME-MILD (37 patients). Operative times, blood losses, surgical complications, Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, the JOA Back Pain Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), visual analog scales (VAS), and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) were evaluated.

RESULTS

PLIF was observed to require significantly longer operative times and entailed greater operative blood losses than did ME-MILD (151.1 vs. 119.9 min; 202.2 vs. 6.4 mL, respectively). Surgery-related complications were identified in 3 cases in the PLIF group and 2 cases in the ME-MILD group. Seventy-eight patients (50 and 28 patients in the PLIF and ME-MILD groups, respectively) were successfully followed-up for >5 years. The follow-up rate was 67.2%. No significant differences between the groups were found in terms of preoperative and postoperative JOA scores, postoperative JOABPEQ, VAS, or ZCQ. Significant improvements in JOA scores were observed in both groups. Significant improvements in the SF-36 were observed in all subscales except in role physical, general health, vitality, and mental health in the ME-MILD group. Revision surgical procedures were performed in 2 patients in the ME-MILD group and 4 patients in the PLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

PLIF and ME-MILD resulted in equivalent improvements in SF-36 and JOA scores. There were no differences in revision surgery rates among patients with single-level, mild DLS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-a retrospective analysis.

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review of the SPORT Literature

The Spine Patient-Reported Outcomes Related Trial (SPORT) is arguably one of the most impactful and insightful studies conducted in spine surgery. Designed as a prospective, multicenter study with randomized and observational cohorts, SPORT has provided vast data on the pathogenesis, treatment effects, clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness of disk herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis. With regards to spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, SPORT has demonstrated a sustained benefit from surgical intervention at 2, 4, and 8 years postoperatively. Myriad subgroup analyses have subsequently been performed that have also resulted in clinically relevant findings. These analyses have assessed incidence and risk factors for reoperations and intraoperative complications, impact of patient comorbidities and host factors, influence of epidural injections, patient decision-making, and role of nonoperative therapy. This has resulted in significant findings that may allow spine surgeons to optimize patient outcomes while managing expectations appropriately.

Determination of dynamic instability in lumbar spondylolisthesis using flexion and extension standing radiographs versus neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI

OBJECTIVE

In this study the authors sought to compare the proportion of patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis detected to have dynamic instability based on flexion and extension standing radiographs versus neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study of all consecutive adult patients diagnosed with spondylolisthesis from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018, for whom the required imaging was available for analysis. Two independent observers measured the amount of translation, in millimeters, on supine MRI and flexion, extension, and neutral standing radiographs using the Meyerding technique. Interobserver and intraobserver correlation coefficients were calculated. The difference in amount of translation was compared between 1) flexion and extension standing radiographs and 2) neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI. The proportion of patients with dynamic instability, defined as a ≥ 3 mm difference in the amount of translation measured on different imaging modalities, was reported. Correlation between amount of dynamic instability and change in back pain and leg pain 1 year after decompression and instrumented fusion was analyzed using multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included in this study. The mean patient age was 57.1 years, and 55.4% of patients were female. The most commonly affected levels were L4-5 (60.7%) and L5-S1 (30.4%). The average translations measured on flexion standing radiograph, extension standing radiograph, neutral standing radiograph, and supine MRI were 12.5 mm, 11.9 mm, 10.1 mm, and 7.2 mm, respectively. The average difference between flexion and extension standing radiographs was 0.58 mm, with dynamic instability detected in 21.4% of patients. The average difference between neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI was 3.77 mm, with dynamic instability detected in 60.7% of patients. The intraobserver correlation coefficient ranged from 0.77 to 0.90 mm. The interobserver correlation coefficient ranged from 0.79 to 0.86 mm. In 44 patients who underwent decompression and instrumented fusion, the amount of dynamic instability between standing and supine imaging was significantly correlated with change in back pain (p < 0.001) and leg pain (p = 0.05) at the 12-month postoperative follow-up. There was no correlation between amount of dynamic instability between flexion and extension standing radiographs and postoperative back pain and leg pain.

CONCLUSIONS

More patients were found to have dynamic instability by using neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI. In patients who received decompression and instrumented fusion, there was a significant correlation between dynamic instability on neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI and change in back pain and leg pain at 12 months.

To fuse or not to fuse: a survey among members of the German Spine Society (DWG) regarding lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Surgical treatment methods for degenerative spondylolisthesis (decompression versus decompression and fusion) have been critically debated. The medical care situation is almost unknown for either treatment. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to provide information regarding the use of parameters for decision-making and the employment of surgical techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A web-based survey was performed among members of the German-Spine-Society (DWG). Information regarding participant characteristics (specialty, age, DWG certification status, number of spine surgeries performed at the participant's institution each year, institutional status), estimates of the use of both treatment options, clinical and morphological decision-making criteria for additive fusion, and the surgical technique used was queried.

RESULTS

305 members (45% neurosurgeons/ 55% orthopedic or trauma surgeons) participated in the present study. The participants estimated that in 41.7% of the cases, decompression only was required, while 55.6% would benefit from additional fusion. Among the participants, 74% reported that low back pain was an important indicator of the need for fusion if the numerical rating scale for back pain was at least 6/10. The most commonly used decompression technique was minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy, whereas open approach-based interbody fusion with transpedicular fixation and laminotomy was the most frequently used fusion technique. Specialty, age, certification status, and institutional status had a partial effect on the responses regarding indications, treatment and surgical technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The present survey depicts the diversity of approaches to surgery for degenerative spondylolistheses in Germany. Considerable differences in treatment selection were observed in relation to the participants' educational level and specialty.

Management of symptomatic degenerative low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis

Degenerative low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis is the most common form of spondylolisthesis.

The majority of patients are asymptomatic and do not require surgical intervention.

Symptomatic patients present with a combination of lower back pain, radiculopathy and/or neurogenic claudication and may warrant surgery if non-operative measures fail.

There is widespread controversy regarding the indications for surgery and appropriate treatment strategies for patients with this type of spondylolisthesis.

This article provides a comprehensive evidence-based review of the available literature to support the management of degenerative low-grade spondylolisthesis.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:620-631. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180020.

Minimally invasive decompression in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. Report of a surgical series and review of the literature

We reported the results of minimally invasive spinal decompression (MISD) in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) associated with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and performed a literature review in order to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes, the complications and reoperation rate of MISD procedures in these patients. Data of 28 patients submitted to MISD for DS associated to LSS were reviewed. We evaluated the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) both for low back pain (LBP) and legs pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the degree of the slippage. A PubMed search of the English literature was conducted. Only papers with more than 10 patients and reporting explicitly data of patients with DS were included in the analysis. We found a statistically significant improvement of LBP, legs pain and ODI in our series. The degree of slippage was stable at follow-up (FU) with no need of reoperation. No major complications occurred. In our literature review, we were able to analyze the differences in ODI in 156 patients and the differences in Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score in 218 patients. We observed a statistically significant improvement of ODI and JOA score at FU compared to pre-operative. The percentage of slippage, evaluated in 283 patients, was unchanged at FU compared to pre-operative. The overall complication rate was 1.6%. The overall reoperation rate was 4.5%. MISD procedures are safe and effective in patients with DS associated to LSS and are associated to low morbidity and significant improvement of disability without progression of slippage.

Decompression Alone Versus Decompression and Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of decompression alone (D group) with decompression and fusion (DF group) for patients who were diagnosed with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for relevant studies that compared decompression alone with decompression and fusion for LDS. Then, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted, and the extracted data were analyzed by using RevMan 5.3. We used the random effects model for studies that had heterogeneity between them, and for those without heterogeneity, the fixed model was used.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 14 nonrandomized controlled studies involving 77,994 patients were included for this meta-analysis. Although the DF group was associated with a higher postoperative change score on a visual analog scale compared with the D group in terms of back (P = 0.02) and leg (P = 0.04), they failed to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Moreover, no significant differences were found in Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, Short-Form 36 physical and mental component summaries score, and patients' satisfaction (P > 0.05) between treatment groups. Complication rate and reoperation rate (P > 0.05) were similar in both groups. Data analysis also showed that the DF group was associated with longer operation time (P < 0.00001), more intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.00001), and longer length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with LDS, decompression and fusion surgery did not yield better clinical outcomes than decompression alone surgery. Also, the complication rate and reoperation rate were comparable between treatment groups. However, patients who had undergone decompression alone had shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stay.

Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Current Concepts and New Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Current guidelines for the optimal treatment degenerative spondylolisthesis are weak and based on limited high-quality evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is some moderate evidence that decompression alone may be a feasible treatment with lower surgical morbidity and similar outcomes to fusion when performed in a select population with a low-grade slip. Similarly, addition of interbody fusion may be best suited to a subset of patients with high-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis, although this remains controversial. Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly being utilized for both decompression and fusion surgeries with more and more studies showing similar outcomes and lower postoperative morbidity for patients. This will likely be an area of continued intense research. Finally, the role of spondylolisthesis reduction will likely be determined as further investigation into optimal sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters is conducted. Future identification of ideal thresholds for sagittal vertical axis and slip angle that will prevent progression and reoperation will play an important role in surgical treatment planning. Current evidence supports surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. While posterolateral spinal fusion remains the treatment of choice, the use of interbodies and decompressions without fusion may be efficacious in certain populations. However, additional high-quality evidence is needed, especially in newer areas of practice such as minimally invasive techniques and sagittal balance correction.

Decompression plus fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of decompression plus fusion and decompression alone for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available evidence was performed.

METHODS

A search of the literature was conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Relevant studies comparing decompression plus fusion and decompression alone were selected according to eligibility criteria. Predefined endpoints were extracted and meta-analyzed from the identified studies.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies were eligible. The pooled data revealed that fusion was associated with significantly higher rates of satisfaction and lower leg pain scores when compared with decompression alone. However, fusion significantly increased the intraoperative blood loss, operative time and hospital stay. Both techniques had similar ODI, back pain scores, complication rate, and reoperation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, decompression plus fusion maybe be better than decompression alone in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Fusion had advantages of improvement of clinical satisfaction, as well as reduction of postoperative leg pain, with similar complication rate to decompression alone.