Effect of Single and Two Level Posterior Instrumented Fusion for L4-5 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis with Adjacent Spinal Stenosis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Backgrounds: Pedicular screw fixation is the most popular system in instrumented arthrodesis in the lumbar spine. Long- term important complication after lumbar fusion is adjacent segment disease (ASD).The incidence of symptomatic ASD was 5.2-18.5%. Normal progression of degenerative disease and biomechanical alteration played an important role in this disease. However, the cause of ASD is not clear. It has been an attempt to find ways to prevent ASD such as arthroplasty, dynamic fixation and percutaneous fixation. However, it has not been found the effective method. Because adjacent spinal stenosis above single level fusion may increase risk of ASD, therefore we hypothesize that ASD rate will be decrease if we extend spinal fusion to adjacent level.
Purpose: To determine the clinical outcome, particularly in the presence ASD, which led to the second operation in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis of L4-5 and multilevel lumbar stenosis treated with PLF and pedicular screw fixation at L4-5 compare with PLF, Pedicular screw fixation at L4-5 and prophylaxis fixation at L3-4.
Methods: 67 patients with degenerative L4 spondylolisthesis (grade I-II) and spinal canal stenosis at L3-5. Group 1,32 patients underwent L4-5 PLF and pedicular screws fixation in 2007-2010, Group 2,35 patients underwent PLF, pedicular screws fixation at L4-5 and prophylaxis fixation at L3-4 in 2011-2013. Based on the obtained data from the patients, pre-operatively, immediately after surgery and at the time of follow-up at 3 months, 6 months, 1 years and then annually afterward including age, sex, BMI, visual analog pain scores (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the occurrence of ASD and the second operation. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistic, Chi-square test and student’s t-test.
Results: Surgery patients age average of 55.76 years (range 37-69 years). The mean follow-up period was 65.64 months (range 63-72 months). The recovery rate of VAS score and ODI were not significantly different between the two groups. The lumbar lordosis after operation was decrease in both groups. There were angulation, translation, and decreased disk height at the level above the fusion in both groups but it is not significantly different. Single level fusion group found that grade of listhesis and BMI is a factor affecting ASD (P < 0.05). For the two level fusion groups, the four factors, age, gender, grade of listhesis and BMI did not affect ASD. The occurence of ASD in single level fusion group at L3-4 level in 4 cases (12.5%). Two level fusion group found ASD at L2-3 level in 1 cases (2.85%). The occurrence of ASD between two groups were not significantly different.
Conclusion: There is not significantly different in functional outcome between single level or two level fusion with pedicular screws fixation in treatment of patients with degenerative L4 spondylolisthesis and multilevel lumbar stenosis. It cannot be concluded that two level fusion with pedicular screws fixation was the effective way to prevent ASD on cranial segment.
Article Details
References
2. Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991; 73: 802-8.
3. Truumees E, Herkowitz HN. Lumbar spinal stenosis: treatment options. Instr Course Lect 2001; 50: 153-61.
4. Glaser JA, Bernhardt M, Found EM, McDowell GS, Wetzel FT. Lumbar arthrodesis for degenerative conditions. Instr Course Lect 2004; 53: 325-40.
5. Knaub MA, Won DS, McGuire R, Herkowitz HN. Lumbar spinal stenosis: indications for arthrodesis and spinal instrumentation. Instr Course Lect 2005; 54: 313-9.
6. Smorgick Y, Park DK, Baker KC, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, et al. Single- versus multilevel fusion for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis and multilevel lumbar stenosis: four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38:797-805.
7. Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS. Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J 2013; 13: 342-51.
8. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29: 1938-44.
9. Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, Hsu WK, Dawson EG. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A(7): 1497-503.
10. Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee SW, Ahn YJ, Kim YT, Lee DH, et al . Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 2009; 18: 1637-43.
11. Epstein NE. Adjacent level disease following lumbar spine surgery: A review. Surg NeurolInt 2015; 6(Suppl 24): S591-S599.
12. Chen BL, Wei FX, Ueyama K, Xie DH, Sannohe A, Liu SY. Adjacent segment degeneration after single-segment PLIF: the risk factor for degeneration and its impact on clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J 2011; 20: 1946-50.
13. Hikata T, Kamata M, Furukawa M. Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and efficacy of simultaneous decompression surgery for symptomatic adjacent segment disease. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014; 27: 70-5.
14. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ, Bitan FD, Cappuccino A, Geisler FH, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 2009; 9: 374-86.
15. Morishita Y, Ohta H, Naito M, Matsumoto Y, Huang G, Tatsumi M, et al. Kinematic evaluation of the adjacent segments after lumbar instrumented surgery: a comparison between rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization. Eur Spine J 2011; 20: 1480-5.
16. Lee DY, Lee SH, Maeng DH. Two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a minimum 3-year follow-up study. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2010; 50: 645-50.
17. Cook DJ, Yeager MS, Cheng BC. Range of motion of the intact lumbar segment: a multivariate study of 42 lumbar spines. Int J Spine Surg 2015; 9: 5.
18. Sanjaroensuttikul N. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire (version 1.0) Thai version. J Med Assoc Thai 2007; 90: 1417-22.
19. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25:2940-52.
20. Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS, Cappuccino A, McAfee PC. The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997; 22: 2655-63.
21. Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 2001; 10: 314-9.