STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective clinical and radiographic study was performed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and a preexisting degenerative L5-S1 disc treated with a lumbar floating fusion (LFF) versus lumbosacral fusion (LSF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Fusion for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis often ends at the L5 level. These patients usually had a preexisting L5-S1 disc degeneration; however, no literature mentions the role of prophylactic LSF in degenerative spondylolisthesis associated with L5-S1 disc degeneration. METHODS: A total of 107 patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up who had lumbosacral or LFF with pedicle instrumentation for degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) classification was used to evaluate the radiographic results of the L5-S1 segment. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and modified Brodsky's criteria were used to evaluate patients' clinical results. The incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASD) (includes radiographic and clinical ASD) of both ends was recorded. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age distribution, or amount of follow-up between the LFF and LSF groups. The LSF group had a higher percentage of patients that underwent total L5 laminectomy with loss of L5-S1 posterior ligament integrity (LSF = 92% vs. LFF = 67%, P = 0.019). The higher incidence of cephalic ASD in the LSF group was statistically significant (LSF = 25% vs. LFF = 9.7%, P = 0.049). Although no patient in the LSF group developed L5-S1 ASD, need for L5-S1 segment revision surgery was not prevented with LSF. Clinical outcomes on the basis of the success rate (LFF = 85.5% vs.LSF = 70.8%, P = 0.103) and ODI difference (LFF = 28.97 ± 15.82 vs. LSF = 23.04 ± 10.97, P = 0.109), there were no statistically significant difference between these two groups. CONCLUSION: Posterior instrumentation with posterolateral LFF for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with concomitant L5-S1 disc degeneration results in a high percentage of satisfactory clinical results. Extended fusion to the sacrum did not provide a better clinical result. LSF could not reduce the incidence of revision surgery at the L5-S1 segment and involved greater incidence of cephalic ASD.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective clinical and radiographic study was performed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and a preexisting degenerative L5-S1 disc treated with a lumbar floating fusion (LFF) versus lumbosacral fusion (LSF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Fusion for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis often ends at the L5 level. These patients usually had a preexisting L5-S1 disc degeneration; however, no literature mentions the role of prophylactic LSF in degenerative spondylolisthesis associated with L5-S1 disc degeneration. METHODS: A total of 107 patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up who had lumbosacral or LFF with pedicle instrumentation for degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) classification was used to evaluate the radiographic results of the L5-S1 segment. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and modified Brodsky's criteria were used to evaluate patients' clinical results. The incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASD) (includes radiographic and clinical ASD) of both ends was recorded. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age distribution, or amount of follow-up between the LFF and LSF groups. The LSF group had a higher percentage of patients that underwent total L5 laminectomy with loss of L5-S1 posterior ligament integrity (LSF = 92% vs. LFF = 67%, P = 0.019). The higher incidence of cephalic ASD in the LSF group was statistically significant (LSF = 25% vs. LFF = 9.7%, P = 0.049). Although no patient in the LSF group developed L5-S1 ASD, need for L5-S1 segment revision surgery was not prevented with LSF. Clinical outcomes on the basis of the success rate (LFF = 85.5% vs.LSF = 70.8%, P = 0.103) and ODI difference (LFF = 28.97 ± 15.82 vs. LSF = 23.04 ± 10.97, P = 0.109), there were no statistically significant difference between these two groups. CONCLUSION: Posterior instrumentation with posterolateral LFF for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with concomitant L5-S1 disc degeneration results in a high percentage of satisfactory clinical results. Extended fusion to the sacrum did not provide a better clinical result. LSF could not reduce the incidence of revision surgery at the L5-S1 segment and involved greater incidence of cephalic ASD.
Authors: Michael C Gerling; Dante Leven; Peter G Passias; Virginie Lafage; Kristina Bianco; Alexandra Lee; Tamara S Morgan; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Wenyan Zhao; Kevin F Spratt; Kristen Radcliff; Thomas J Errico Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2017-10-15 Impact factor: 3.241