Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: A Radiographic and Outcomes Analysis Comparing Circumferential Fusions Versus TLIF Procedures.
Journal
Clinical spine surgery
ISSN: 2380-0194
Titre abrégé: Clin Spine Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101675083
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2022
01 10 2022
Historique:
received:
16
11
2021
accepted:
01
03
2022
pubmed:
7
4
2022
medline:
30
9
2022
entrez:
6
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This was a retrospective cohort study. The objective of this study was to compare radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between circumferential fusions and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS). Definitive management of adult IS typically requires decompression and fusion. Multiple fusion techniques have been described, but literature is sparse in identifying the optimal technique. Patients with IS undergoing single-level or 2-level circumferential fusion or TLIF with a minimum 1-year follow-up were included. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and PROMs were extracted from patients' electronic medical records. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analysis compared outcomes with significance set at P -value <0.05. A total of 78 circumferential fusions (48 open decompression and fusions and 30 circumferential fusions utilizing posterior percutaneous instrumentation) and 50 TLIF procedures were included. Length of stay was significantly longer when comparing circumferential procedures (3.56±0.96 d) versus TLIFs (2.88±1.14 d) ( P =0.002). The circumferential fusion group resulted in greater postoperative improvement in segmental lordosis [anterior/posterior (A/P): 6.45, TLIF: -1.99, P <0.001], posterior disk height (A/P: 12.6 mm, TLIF: 8.9 mm, P <0.001), and ∆disk height (A/P: 7.7 mm, TLIF: 3.6 mm, P <0.001). Both groups significantly improved in all PROMs ( P <0.001). While the circumferential fusion group had a significantly higher rate of perioperative surgical complications (12.82% vs. 2.00%, P =0.049), there was no difference in the rate of 30-day readmissions ( P =0.520) or revision surgeries between techniques ( P =0.057). Circumferential fusions are associated with improvements in radiographic outcomes compared with TLIFs, but this is at the expense of longer hospital length of stay and increased risk for perioperative complications. The surgical technique did not result in superior postoperative PROMs or differences in readmissions or revisions.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
This was a retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to compare radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between circumferential fusions and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Definitive management of adult IS typically requires decompression and fusion. Multiple fusion techniques have been described, but literature is sparse in identifying the optimal technique.
METHODS
Patients with IS undergoing single-level or 2-level circumferential fusion or TLIF with a minimum 1-year follow-up were included. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and PROMs were extracted from patients' electronic medical records. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analysis compared outcomes with significance set at P -value <0.05.
RESULTS
A total of 78 circumferential fusions (48 open decompression and fusions and 30 circumferential fusions utilizing posterior percutaneous instrumentation) and 50 TLIF procedures were included. Length of stay was significantly longer when comparing circumferential procedures (3.56±0.96 d) versus TLIFs (2.88±1.14 d) ( P =0.002). The circumferential fusion group resulted in greater postoperative improvement in segmental lordosis [anterior/posterior (A/P): 6.45, TLIF: -1.99, P <0.001], posterior disk height (A/P: 12.6 mm, TLIF: 8.9 mm, P <0.001), and ∆disk height (A/P: 7.7 mm, TLIF: 3.6 mm, P <0.001). Both groups significantly improved in all PROMs ( P <0.001). While the circumferential fusion group had a significantly higher rate of perioperative surgical complications (12.82% vs. 2.00%, P =0.049), there was no difference in the rate of 30-day readmissions ( P =0.520) or revision surgeries between techniques ( P =0.057).
CONCLUSIONS
Circumferential fusions are associated with improvements in radiographic outcomes compared with TLIFs, but this is at the expense of longer hospital length of stay and increased risk for perioperative complications. The surgical technique did not result in superior postoperative PROMs or differences in readmissions or revisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35385406
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001336
pii: 01933606-202210000-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E660-E666Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Dr Schroeder has received funds to travel from AOSpine and Medtronic. Dr Vaccaro has consulted or has done independent contracting for DePuy, Medtronic, Stryker Spine, Globus, Stout Medical, Gerson Lehrman Group, Guidepoint Global, Medacorp, Innovative Surgical Design, Orthobullets, Ellipse, and Vertex. He has also served on the scientific advisory board/board of directors/committees for Flagship Surgical, AO Spine, Innovative Surgical Design, and Association of Collaborative Spine Research. Dr Vaccaro has received royalty payments from Medtronic, Stryker Spine, Globus, Aesculap, Thieme, Jaypee, Elsevier, and Taylor Francis/Hodder and Stoughton. He has stock/stock option ownership interests in Replication Medica, Globus, Paradigm Spine, Stout Medical, Progressive Spinal Technologies, Advanced Spinal Intellectual Properties, Spine Medica, Computational Biodynamics, Spinology, In Vivo, Flagship Surgical, Cytonics, Bonovo Orthopaedics, Electrocore, Gamma Spine, Location Based Intelligence, FlowPharma, R.S.I., Rothman Institute and Related Properties, Innovative Surgical Design, and Avaz Surgical. In addition, Dr Vaccaro has also provided expert testimony. He has also served as deputy editor/editor of Clinical Spine Surgery. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Fredrickson BE, Baker D, McHolick WJ, et al. The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:699–707.
Kalichman L, Kim DH, Li L, et al. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: prevalence and association with low back pain in the adult community-based population. Spine. 2009;34:199–205.
Jones TR, Rao RD. Adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Am Acad Orthop Sur. 2009;17:609–617.
Kreiner DS, Baisden J, Mazanec DJ, et al. Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine J. 2016;16:1478–1485.
Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg. 2015;1:2–18.
McAfee PC, DeVine JG, Chaput CD, et al. The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2005;30(suppl 6):S60–S65.
Wang S-J, Han Y-C, Liu X-M, et al. Fusion techniques for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134:777–784.
Jiang S-D, Chen J-W, Jiang L-S. Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:1259–1266.
Lee S-H, Choi W-G, Lim S-R, et al. Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine J. 2004;4:644–649.
Kim J-S, Lee K-Y, Lee S-H, et al. Which lumbar interbody fusion technique is better in terms of level for the treatment of unstable isthmic spondylolisthesis? J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;12:171–177.
Möller H, Hedlund R. Instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomized study: part 2. Spine. 2000;25:1716–1721.
Schnee CL, Freese A, Ansell LV. Outcome analysis for adults with spondylolisthesis treated with posterolateral fusion and transpedicular screw fixation. J Neurosurg. 1997;86:56–63.
D’Souza M, Macdonald NA, Gendreau JL, et al. Graft materials and biologics for spinal interbody fusion. Biomedicines. 2019;7:75.
Allain J, Dufour T. Anterior lumbar fusion techniques: ALIF, OLIF, DLIF, LLIF, IXLIF. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;106(suppl):S149–S157.
Szadkowski M, d’Astorg H, Bouhali H, et al. Outcomes of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion of L5–S1 using a novel implant with anterior plate fixation. Spine J. 2020;20:1618–1628.
Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Mobbs RJ. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion – systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg. 2015;29:705–711.
Phan K, Xu J, Scherman DB, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with and without an “Access Surgeon”. Spine. 2017;42:E592–E601.
Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:379–386.
Divi SN, Schroeder GD, Goyal DKC, et al. Fusion technique does not affect short-term patient-reported outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease. Spine J. 2019;19:1960–1968.
Stull JD, Divi SN, Goyal DKC, et al. Preoperative Mental Health Component Scoring is related to patient reported outcomes following lumbar fusion. Spine. 2020;45:798–803.
Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:471–478.
Endler P, Ekman P, Ljungqvist H, et al. Long-term outcome after spinal fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. Spine J. 2019;19:501–508.
Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R, et al. Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine. 2006;31:2875–2880.
Kwon BK, Hilibrand AS, Malloy K, et al. A critical analysis of the literature regarding surgical approach and outcome for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(suppl):S30–S40.
Kim J-S, Kang B-U, Lee S-H, et al. Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22:114–121.
Sebastian AS, Dalton D, Slaven SE, et al. What is the optimal surgical treatment for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis? ALIF or TLIF. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:389–392.
Pesenti S, Lafage R, Stein D, et al. The amount of proximal lumbar lordosis is related to pelvic incidence. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:1603–1611.
Schwab F, Lafage V, Patel A, et al. Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine. 2009;34:1828–1833.
Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, et al. Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine. 2005;30:346–353.
Kim J-S, Kim D-H, Lee S-H. Comparison between instrumented mini-TLIF and instrumented circumferential fusion in adult low-grade lytic spondylolisthesis : can mini-TLIF with PPF replace circumferential fusion? J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2009;45:74–80.
Kim J-S, Kim D-H, Lee S-H, et al. Comparison study of the instrumented circumferential fusion with instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion as a surgical procedure for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg. 2010;73:565–571.
Liu J, Duan P, Mummaneni PV, et al. Does transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion induce lordosis or kyphosis? Radiographic evaluation with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;35:419–426.
Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, et al. Perioperative surgical complications of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center experience. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;16:44–50.
Upadhyayula PS, Curtis EI, Yue JK, et al. Anterior versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: perioperative risk factors and 30-day outcomes. Int J Spine Surg. 2018;12:533–542.