STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE.: Estimate the prevalence of spondylolisthesis and determine the factors associated with higher or lower prevalence among men aged 65 years or older. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spondylolisthesis prevalence is reported to increase with age and to be higher among women than men. Among women aged > or =65 years, prevalence was estimated to be 29%, but no estimates among men of this age have been reported. METHODS.: Lateral lumbar spine radiographs were obtained at baseline and a follow-up visit in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study, a cohort of community dwelling men ages > or =65 years. Average time between radiographs was 4.6 (+/-0.4) years. For the present study, 300 men were sampled at random at baseline. Of these, 295 had a usable baseline radiograph; 190 surviving participants had a follow-up radiograph. Spondylolisthesis was defined as a forward slip > or =5%. Progression was defined as a 5% increase in slip severity on the follow-up radiograph. Associations of spondylolisthesis prevalence with baseline characteristics were estimated with age-adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals from log binomial regression models. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the men studied was 74 (+/-6) years. Prevalence of lumbar spondylolisthesis was 31%. Spondylolisthesis was observed at the L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 levels. In 96% with spondylolisthesis, only one vertebral level was involved. The degree of slip ranged from 5% to 28%, and nearly all listhesis was classified as Meyerding grade I. During follow-up, 12% of men with prevalent spondylolisthesis had progression; 12% without baseline spondylolisthesis had new onset. Prevalence did not vary by height, BMI, smoking history, diabetes, or heart disease. However, men with spondylolisthesis more often reported higher levels of physical activity or walking daily for exercise than men without spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSION: Spondylolisthesis may be more common among older men than previously recognized.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE.: Estimate the prevalence of spondylolisthesis and determine the factors associated with higher or lower prevalence among men aged 65 years or older. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spondylolisthesis prevalence is reported to increase with age and to be higher among women than men. Among women aged > or =65 years, prevalence was estimated to be 29%, but no estimates among men of this age have been reported. METHODS.: Lateral lumbar spine radiographs were obtained at baseline and a follow-up visit in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study, a cohort of community dwelling men ages > or =65 years. Average time between radiographs was 4.6 (+/-0.4) years. For the present study, 300 men were sampled at random at baseline. Of these, 295 had a usable baseline radiograph; 190 surviving participants had a follow-up radiograph. Spondylolisthesis was defined as a forward slip > or =5%. Progression was defined as a 5% increase in slip severity on the follow-up radiograph. Associations of spondylolisthesis prevalence with baseline characteristics were estimated with age-adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals from log binomial regression models. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the men studied was 74 (+/-6) years. Prevalence of lumbar spondylolisthesis was 31%. Spondylolisthesis was observed at the L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 levels. In 96% with spondylolisthesis, only one vertebral level was involved. The degree of slip ranged from 5% to 28%, and nearly all listhesis was classified as Meyerding grade I. During follow-up, 12% of men with prevalent spondylolisthesis had progression; 12% without baseline spondylolisthesis had new onset. Prevalence did not vary by height, BMI, smoking history, diabetes, or heart disease. However, men with spondylolisthesis more often reported higher levels of physical activity or walking daily for exercise than men without spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSION: Spondylolisthesis may be more common among older men than previously recognized.
Authors: Martin B Kornblum; Jeffrey S Fischgrund; Harry N Herkowitz; David A Abraham; David L Berkower; Jeff S Ditkoff Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: William J Beutler; Bruce E Fredrickson; Albert Murtland; Colleen A Sweeney; William D Grant; Daniel Baker Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Leonid Kalichman; David H Kim; Ling Li; Ali Guermazi; Valery Berkin; David J Hunter Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Lai-Chang He; Yi-Xiang J Wang; Jing-Shan Gong; James F Griffith; Xian-Jun Zeng; Anthony W L Kwok; Jason C S Leung; Timothy Kwok; Anil T Ahuja; Ping Chung Leung Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Patrick J Denard; Kathleen F Holton; Jessica Miller; Howard A Fink; Deborah M Kado; Lynn M Marshall; Jung U Yoo Journal: Spine J Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Robert D Vining; Eric Potocki; Ian McLean; Michael Seidman; A Paige Morgenthal; James Boysen; Christine Goertz Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Yì Xiáng J Wáng; Min Deng; James F Griffith; Anthony W L Kwok; Jason C S Leung; Patti M S Lam; Blanche Wai Man Yu; Ping Chung Leung; Timothy C Y Kwok Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2022-03
Authors: Trusharth Patel; Christopher Watterson; Anne Marie McKenzie-Brown; Boris Spektor; Katherine Egan; David Boorman Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Thomas Andersen; Finn B Christensen; Bente L Langdahl; Carsten Ernst; Søren Fruensgaard; Jørgen Østergaard; Jens Langer Andersen; Sten Rasmussen; Bent Niedermann; Kristian Høy; Peter Helmig; Randi Holm; Niels Egund; Cody Bünger Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Saulo de Tarso de Sá Pereira Segundo; Edgar Santiago Valesin; Mario Lenza; Durval do Carmo Barros Santos; Laercio Alberto Rosemberg; Mario Ferretti Journal: Einstein (Sao Paulo) Date: 2016 Jul-Sep