Literature DB >> 19755935

Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial.

William A Abdu1, Jon D Lurie, Kevin F Spratt, Anna N A Tosteson, Wenyan Zhao, Tor D Tosteson, Harry Herkowitz, Michael Longely, Scott D Boden, Sanford Emery, James N Weinstein.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Clinical trial subgroup analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of different fusion techniques treating degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Summary of Background Data. Surgery has been shown to be more effective than nonoperative treatment out to 4 years. Questions remain regarding the differential effect of fusion technique.
METHODS: Surgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 states with at least 12 weeks of symptoms and confirmatory imaging showing stenosis and DS were studied. In addition to standard decompressive laminectomy, 1 of 3 fusion techniques was employed at the surgeon's discretion: posterolateral in situ fusion (PLF); posterolateral instrumented fusion with pedicle screws (PPS); or PPS plus interbody fusion (360 degrees). Main outcome measures were the SF-36 bodily pain (BP) and physical function (PF) scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) assessed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly to 4 years. The as-treated analysis combined the randomized and observational cohorts using mixed longitudinal models adjusting for potential confounders.
RESULTS: Of 380 surgical patients, 21% (N = 80) received a PLF; 56% (N = 213) received a PPS; 17% (N = 63) received a 360 degrees; and 6% (N = 23) had decompression only without fusion. Early outcomes varied, favoring PLF compared to PPS at 6 weeks (PF: 12.73 vs. 6.22, P < 0.020) and 3 months (PF: 25.24 vs.18.95, P < 0.025) and PPS compared to 360 degrees at 6 weeks (ODI: -14.46 vs. -9.30, P < 0.03) and 3 months (ODI: -22.30 vs. -16.78, P < 0.02). At 2 years, 360 degrees had better outcomes: BP: 39.08 versus 29.17 PLF, P < 0.011; and versus 29.13 PPS, P < 0.002; PF: 31.93 versus 23.27 PLF, P < 0.021; and versus 25.29 PPS, P < 0.036. However, these differences were not maintained at 3- and 4-year follow-up, when there were no statistically significant differences between the 3 fusion groups.
CONCLUSION: In patients with DS and associated spinal stenosis, no consistent differences in clinical outcomes were seen among fusion groups over 4 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19755935      PMCID: PMC3750746          DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b8a829

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  39 in total

1.  Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis, a prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis: a critical analysis.

Authors:  A R Vaccaro; S R Garfin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests.

Authors:  L H Daltroy; W L Cats-Baril; J N Katz; A H Fossel; M H Liang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Spine update. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  H N Herkowitz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  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.

Authors:  J S Fischgrund; M Mackay; H N Herkowitz; R Brower; D M Montgomery; L T Kurz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: Clinical features related to radiographic findings.

Authors:  B Jönsson; M Annertz; C Sjöberg; B Strömqvist
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; L C Chang; S A Levine; A H Fossel; M H Liang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; J F Lu; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part III. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  S J Atlas; R A Deyo; R B Keller; A M Chapin; D L Patrick; J M Long; D E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population.

Authors:  R A Deyo; M A Ciol; D C Cherkin; J D Loeser; S J Bigos
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica.

Authors:  D L Patrick; R A Deyo; S J Atlas; D E Singer; A Chapin; R B Keller
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  45 in total

1.  Surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: open versus minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Charles A Reitman; D Greg Anderson; Jeff Fischgrund
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-07-20       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Development of appropriateness criteria for the surgical treatment of symptomatic lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS).

Authors:  A F Mannion; V Pittet; F Steiger; J-P Vader; H-J Becker; F Porchet
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Surgery in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications, outcomes and complications. A systematic review.

Authors:  F Steiger; H-J Becker; C J Standaert; F Balague; J-P Vader; F Porchet; A F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  South Korean degenerative spondylolisthesis patients had surgical treatment at earlier age than Japanese, American, and European patients: a published literature observation.

Authors:  Zoltán Káplár; Yì-Xiáng J Wáng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2016-12

Review 5.  Degenerative spondylolisthesis: contemporary review of the role of interbody fusion.

Authors:  Joseph F Baker; Thomas J Errico; Yong Kim; Afshin Razi
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-11-25

Review 6.  A Narrative Review of Lumbar Fusion Surgery With Relevance to Chiropractic Practice.

Authors:  Clinton J Daniels; Pamela J Wakefield; Glenn A Bub; James D Toombs
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-10-18

Review 7.  Is reduction better than arthrodesis in situ in surgical management of low-grade spondylolisthesis? A system review and meta analysis.

Authors:  Xuedong Bai; Jiahai Chen; Liyang Liu; Xiaochuan Li; Yaohong Wu; Deli Wang; Dike Ruan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF).

Authors:  Jeffrey L Gum; Deepak Reddy; Steven Glassman
Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech       Date:  2016-06-08

Review 9.  Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Current Concepts and New Evidence.

Authors:  Andre M Samuel; Harold G Moore; Matthew E Cunningham
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

10.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Kristian Høy; Cody Bünger; Bent Niederman; Peter Helmig; Ebbe Stender Hansen; Haisheng Li; Thomas Andersen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.