Guohua Wang1, Jianzhong Hu, Xiangyang Liu, Yong Cao. 1. Department of Spine Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410008, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) is a spinal deformity that typically develops in adults over 50 years old. Although its etiology is unclear, asymmetric degeneration of the spine is the main cause. Individuals with DLS may experience no symptoms of the deformity, mild symptoms, or severe disability. Most patients with DLS receive conservative treatment, while a small number of patients receive surgery for severe DLS with back pain and/or progressive neurological symptoms. A variety of surgical procedures have emerged. However, a systemic comparison of these surgical procedures is currently unavailable. This study reviews the main outcomes and complications of surgical treatments. METHODS: A meta analysis of main outcomes and complications of surgical treatments of DLS was conducted through searching PubMed and EMbase databases. RESULTS: A total of 45 studies were included in this study, which were classified into four surgical categories. Nine studies utilized isolated decompression, 12 used short interbody fusion, 17 used long interbody fusion, and 11 studies included patients using short or long interbody fusion or surgery other than fusion, respectively. Decompression surgery is used to release the symptoms of neurogenic claudication. Spine fusion is widely utilized to prevent worsening of the curve. Instrumentation has been used together with fusion to straighten the spine, correct sagittal imbalance, and repair rotational defects. Decompression is commonly combined with fusion surgery when treating an individual with DLS. CONCLUSION: Despite a high rate of complications, this review demonstrates that surgery is an effective and reasonable treatment intervention for severe DLS and ultimately improves spine function and deformity. This review also suggests that large scale, high quality studies with long term follow-up are needed to provide more reliable evidence for future evaluation.
PURPOSE:Degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) is a spinal deformity that typically develops in adults over 50 years old. Although its etiology is unclear, asymmetric degeneration of the spine is the main cause. Individuals with DLS may experience no symptoms of the deformity, mild symptoms, or severe disability. Most patients with DLS receive conservative treatment, while a small number of patients receive surgery for severe DLS with back pain and/or progressive neurological symptoms. A variety of surgical procedures have emerged. However, a systemic comparison of these surgical procedures is currently unavailable. This study reviews the main outcomes and complications of surgical treatments. METHODS: A meta analysis of main outcomes and complications of surgical treatments of DLS was conducted through searching PubMed and EMbase databases. RESULTS: A total of 45 studies were included in this study, which were classified into four surgical categories. Nine studies utilized isolated decompression, 12 used short interbody fusion, 17 used long interbody fusion, and 11 studies included patients using short or long interbody fusion or surgery other than fusion, respectively. Decompression surgery is used to release the symptoms of neurogenic claudication. Spine fusion is widely utilized to prevent worsening of the curve. Instrumentation has been used together with fusion to straighten the spine, correct sagittal imbalance, and repair rotational defects. Decompression is commonly combined with fusion surgery when treating an individual with DLS. CONCLUSION: Despite a high rate of complications, this review demonstrates that surgery is an effective and reasonable treatment intervention for severe DLS and ultimately improves spine function and deformity. This review also suggests that large scale, high quality studies with long term follow-up are needed to provide more reliable evidence for future evaluation.
Authors: Vivek A Mehta; Matthew J McGirt; Giannina L Garcés Ambrossi; Scott L Parker; Daniel M Sciubba; Ali Bydon; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Ziya L Gokaslan; Timothy F Witham Journal: Neurol Res Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Adam M Caputo; Keith W Michael; Todd M Chapman; Jason M Jennings; Elizabeth W Hubbard; Robert E Isaacs; Christopher R Brown Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Benjamin K Potter; Brett A Freedman; Eric G Verwiebe; Jordan M Hall; David W Polly; Timothy R Kuklo Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2005-08
Authors: Nasir A Quraishi; M Konig; S J Booker; M Shafafy; B M Boszczyk; M P Grevitt; H Mehdian; J K Webb Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Gary A Fantini; Ioannis P Pappou; Federico P Girardi; Harvinder S Sandhu; Frank P Cammisa Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Kevin Phan; Joshua Xu; Monish M Maharaj; Julian Li; Jun S Kim; John Di Capua; Sulaiman Somani; Kimberly-Anne Tan; Ralph J Mobbs; Samuel K Cho Journal: Orthop Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 2.071
Authors: Sigurd H Berven; Steven J Kamper; Niccole M Germscheid; Benny Dahl; Christopher I Shaffrey; Lawrence G Lenke; Stephen J Lewis; Kenneth M Cheung; Ahmet Alanay; Manabu Ito; David W Polly; Yong Qiu; Marinus de Kleuver Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-08-05 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Anna Ialynytchev; Alan M Sear; Arthur R Williams; Barbara Langland-Orban; Nanhua Zhang Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 3.134