Fanor M Saavedra-Pozo1, Renato A M Deusdara2, Edward C Benzel3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjacent segment disease has become a common topic in spine surgery circles because of the significant increase in fusion surgery in recent years and the development of motion preservation technologies that theoretically should lead to a decrease in this pathology. The purpose of this review is to organize the evidence available in the current literature on this subject. METHODS: FOR THIS LITERATURE REVIEW, A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN PUBMED WITH THE FOLLOWING KEYWORDS: adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Selection, review, and analysis of the literature were completed according to level of evidence. RESULTS: The PubMed search identified 850 articles, from which 41 articles were selected and reviewed. The incidence of adjacent segment disease in the cervical spine is close to 3% without a significant statistical difference between surgical techniques (fusion vs arthroplasty). Authors report the incidence of adjacent segment disease in the lumbar spine to range from 2% to 14%. Damage to the posterior ligamentous complex and sagittal imbalances are important risk factors for both degeneration and disease. CONCLUSION: Insufficient evidence exists at this point to support the idea that total disc arthroplasty is superior to fusion procedures in minimizing the incidence of adjacent segment disease. The etiology is most likely multifactorial but it is becoming abundantly clear that adjacent segment disease is not caused by motion segment fusion alone. Fusion plus the presence of abnormal end-fusion alignment appears to be a major factor in creating end-fusion stresses that result in adjacent segment degeneration and subsequent disease. The data presented cast further doubt on previously established rationales for total disc arthroplasty, at least with regard to the effect of total disc arthroplasty on adjacent segment degeneration pathology.
BACKGROUND: Adjacent segment disease has become a common topic in spine surgery circles because of the significant increase in fusion surgery in recent years and the development of motion preservation technologies that theoretically should lead to a decrease in this pathology. The purpose of this review is to organize the evidence available in the current literature on this subject. METHODS: FOR THIS LITERATURE REVIEW, A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN PUBMED WITH THE FOLLOWING KEYWORDS: adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Selection, review, and analysis of the literature were completed according to level of evidence. RESULTS: The PubMed search identified 850 articles, from which 41 articles were selected and reviewed. The incidence of adjacent segment disease in the cervical spine is close to 3% without a significant statistical difference between surgical techniques (fusion vs arthroplasty). Authors report the incidence of adjacent segment disease in the lumbar spine to range from 2% to 14%. Damage to the posterior ligamentous complex and sagittal imbalances are important risk factors for both degeneration and disease. CONCLUSION: Insufficient evidence exists at this point to support the idea that total disc arthroplasty is superior to fusion procedures in minimizing the incidence of adjacent segment disease. The etiology is most likely multifactorial but it is becoming abundantly clear that adjacent segment disease is not caused by motion segment fusion alone. Fusion plus the presence of abnormal end-fusion alignment appears to be a major factor in creating end-fusion stresses that result in adjacent segment degeneration and subsequent disease. The data presented cast further doubt on previously established rationales for total disc arthroplasty, at least with regard to the effect of total disc arthroplasty on adjacent segment degeneration pathology.
Authors: Pierce D Nunley; Ajay Jawahar; Eubulus J Kerr; Charles J Gordon; David A Cavanaugh; Elisa M Birdsong; Marolyn Stocks; Guy Danielson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: John G Heller; Rick C Sasso; Stephen M Papadopoulos; Paul A Anderson; Richard G Fessler; Robert J Hacker; Domagoj Coric; Joseph C Cauthen; Daniel K Riew Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Daniel Murrey; Michael Janssen; Rick Delamarter; Jeffrey Goldstein; Jack Zigler; Bobby Tay; Bruce Darden Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-09-06 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Anna G U Sawa; Bernardo de Andrada Pereira; Nestor G Rodriguez-Martinez; Phillip M Reyes; Brian P Kelly; Neil R Crawford Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2021-09-22
Authors: Samuel S Rudisill; Alexander L Hornung; J Nicolás Barajas; Jack J Bridge; G Michael Mallow; Wylie Lopez; Arash J Sayari; Philip K Louie; Garrett K Harada; Youping Tao; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Matthew W Colman; Frank M Phillips; Howard S An; Dino Samartzis Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: Timothy Y Wang; Vikram A Mehta; Eric W Sankey; Christopher I Shaffrey; Khoi D Than; William R Taylor; John Pollina; Luiz Pimenta; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 2.721