INTRODUCTION: Clinical symptoms in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) vary from predominantly radiating pain to severe mechanical low back pain. We examined whether the outcome of surgery for LDS varied depending on the predominant baseline symptom and the treatment administered [decompression with fusion (D&F) or decompression alone (D)]. METHODS: 213 consecutive patients (69 ± 9 years; 155f, 58 m) participated. Inclusion criteria were LDS, maximum three affected levels, no previous surgery at the affected level, and D (N = 56) or D&F (N = 157) as the operative procedure. Pre-op and at 12 months' follow-up (FU), patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) including 0-10 leg-pain (LP) and LBP scales. At 12 months' FU, patients rated global outcome which was then dichotomised into "good" and "poor". RESULTS: Pre-operatively, LBP and COMI scores were significantly worse (p < 0.05) in the D&F group than in the D group. The improvement in COMI at 12 months' FU was significantly greater for D&F than for D (p < 0.001) and was not influenced by the patient's declared "main problem" at baseline (back pain, leg pain, or neurological disturbances) (p > 0.05). There was a higher proportion (p = 0.01) of "good" outcomes at 12 months' FU in D&F (86%) than in D (70%). Multiple regression analysis, controlling for possible confounders, revealed treatment group to be the only significant predictor of outcome (adding fusion = better outcome). DISCUSSION: Our study indicated that LDS patients showed better patient-based outcome with instrumented fusion and decompression than with decompression alone, regardless of baseline symptoms. This may be due to the fact that the underlying slippage as the cause of the stenosis is better addressed with fusion.
INTRODUCTION: Clinical symptoms in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) vary from predominantly radiating pain to severe mechanical low back pain. We examined whether the outcome of surgery for LDS varied depending on the predominant baseline symptom and the treatment administered [decompression with fusion (D&F) or decompression alone (D)]. METHODS: 213 consecutive patients (69 ± 9 years; 155f, 58 m) participated. Inclusion criteria were LDS, maximum three affected levels, no previous surgery at the affected level, and D (N = 56) or D&F (N = 157) as the operative procedure. Pre-op and at 12 months' follow-up (FU), patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) including 0-10 leg-pain (LP) and LBP scales. At 12 months' FU, patients rated global outcome which was then dichotomised into "good" and "poor". RESULTS: Pre-operatively, LBP and COMI scores were significantly worse (p < 0.05) in the D&F group than in the D group. The improvement in COMI at 12 months' FU was significantly greater for D&F than for D (p < 0.001) and was not influenced by the patient's declared "main problem" at baseline (back pain, leg pain, or neurological disturbances) (p > 0.05). There was a higher proportion (p = 0.01) of "good" outcomes at 12 months' FU in D&F (86%) than in D (70%). Multiple regression analysis, controlling for possible confounders, revealed treatment group to be the only significant predictor of outcome (adding fusion = better outcome). DISCUSSION: Our study indicated that LDS patients showed better patient-based outcome with instrumented fusion and decompression than with decompression alone, regardless of baseline symptoms. This may be due to the fact that the underlying slippage as the cause of the stenosis is better addressed with fusion.
Authors: Charles A Sansur; Davis L Reames; Justin S Smith; D Kojo Hamilton; Sigurd H Berven; Paul A Broadstone; Theodore J Choma; Michael James Goytan; Hilali H Noordeen; Dennis Raymond Knapp; Robert A Hart; Reinhard D Zeller; William F Donaldson; David W Polly; Joseph H Perra; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Christopher I Shaffrey Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2010-11
Authors: C Ryan Martin; Adam T Gruszczynski; Heike A Braunsfurth; Salah M Fallatah; Joseph O'Neil; Eugene K Wai Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-07-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: J N Katz; S J Lipson; R A Lew; L J Grobler; J N Weinstein; G W Brick; A H Fossel; M H Liang Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1997-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Adam M Pearson; Jon D Lurie; Emily A Blood; John W Frymoyer; Heike Braeutigam; Howard An; Federico P Girardi; James N Weinstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Frank S Kleinstück; Dieter Grob; Friederike Lattig; Viktor Bartanusz; Francois Porchet; Dezsö Jeszenszky; David O'Riordan; Anne F Mannion Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Anne F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Tobias L Schulte; Florian Ringel; Markus Quante; Sven O Eicker; Cathleen Muche-Borowski; Ralph Kothe Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Mark C Snoddy; John A Sielatycki; Ahilan Sivaganesan; Stephen M Engstrom; Matthew J McGirt; Clinton J Devin Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Guy Waisbrod; Anne F Mannion; Támas F Fekete; Frank Kleinstueck; Deszö Jeszenszky; Daniel Haschtmann Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 3.134