Literature DB >> 26196029

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with instrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis: description and association of clinico-surgical variables with prognosis in a series of 36 cases.

Monica Lara-Almunia1, Juan A Gomez-Moreta2, Javier Hernandez-Vicente2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We present our experience in the treatment of patients with isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis, by means of a posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and instrumented posterolateral fusion (IPLF), and we compare them with those published in the literature. We analyse whether there exists any statistical association between the clinical characteristics of the patient, radiological characteristics of the disease and our surgical technique, with the complications and the clinical-radiological prognosis of the cases.
METHOD: We designed a prospective study. A total of 36 cases were operated. The patients included were 14 men and 22 women, with an average age of 57.17±27.32 years. Our technique consists of PLIF+IPLF, using local bone for the fusion. The clinical results were evaluated with the Visual Analogical Scale (VAS) and the Kirkaldy-Willis criteria. The radiological evaluation followed the Bratingan (PLIF) and Lenke (IPLF) methodology. A total of 42 variables were statistically analysed by means of SPSS18. We used the Paired Student's T-test, logistic regression and Pearson's Chi-square-test.
RESULTS: The spondylolisthesis was isthmic in 15 cases and degenerative in 21 cases. The postoperative evaluations had excellent or good results in 94.5% (n = 34), with a statistically significant improvement in the back pain and sciatica (p < 0.01). The rate of circumferential fusion reached was approximately 92%. We had 13.88% of transitory morbility and 0% of mortality associated with our technique. A greater age, degree of listhesis or length of illness before the intervention, weakly correlated with worse clinical results (p< -0.2). In our series, the logistical regression showed that the clinical characteristics of the patient, radiological characteristics of the lesion and our surgical technique were not associated with greater postoperative complications.
CONCLUSION: Although a higher level of training is necessary, we believe that the described technique is a very effective decision in cases of spondylolisthesis, isthmic or degenerative, refractory to conservative treatment, for the obtaining the best clinical results and rates of fusion, with similar risks to those of the other published techniques. Our statistical analysis could contribute to improve outcomes after surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Spondylolisthesis; cages; instrumented posterolateral fusion; posterior lumbar interbody fusion; spinal fusion

Year:  2015        PMID: 26196029      PMCID: PMC4505389          DOI: 10.14444/2022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  49 in total

1.  Spondylolisthesis, its cause and effect.

Authors:  P H NEWMAN
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1955-05       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Posterolateral versus interbody fusion in isthmic spondylolisthesis: functional results in 52 cases with a minimum follow-up of 6 years.

Authors:  Emile Dehoux; Elyes Fourati; Karim Madi; Brian Reddy; Philippe Segal
Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 0.500

3.  Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis.

Authors:  H N Herkowitz; L T Kurz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Posterolateral versus posterior interbody fusion in isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Majid Reza Farrokhi; Abdolkarim Rahmanian; Mohammad Sadegh Masoudi
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2012-04-02       Impact factor: 5.269

Review 5.  Lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  W H Kirkaldy-Willis; K W Paine; J Cauchoix; G McIvor
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1974 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in the child and adolescent: a new classification.

Authors:  Martin J Herman; Peter D Pizzutillo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Posterior-posterobilateral fusion of the lumbosacral spine.

Authors:  A F DePalma; M Prabhakar
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1966 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  What is the optimum fusion technique for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis--PLIF or PLF? A long-term prospective cohort comparison study.

Authors:  John Edward Cunningham; Elizabeth Mary Elling; Abul Hasnat Milton; Peter Alexander Robertson
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2013-07

9.  A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients.

Authors:  J W Brantigan; A D Steffee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Lumbar olisthesis and lower back symptoms in elderly white women. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.

Authors:  M T Vogt; D Rubin; R S Valentin; L Palermo; W F Donaldson; M Nevitt; J A Cauley
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  5 in total

1.  South Korean degenerative spondylolisthesis patients had surgical treatment at earlier age than Japanese, American, and European patients: a published literature observation.

Authors:  Zoltán Káplár; Yì-Xiáng J Wáng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2016-12

Review 2.  Interbody Fusion Techniques in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Peter B Derman; Todd J Albert
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

3.  Pain and disability after first-time spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Niek Koenders; Alison Rushton; Martin L Verra; Paul C Willems; Thomas J Hoogeboom; J Bart Staal
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Role of oxidative metabolism in osseointegration during spinal fusion.

Authors:  Laura C Shum; Alex M Hollenberg; Avionna L Baldwin; Brianna H Kalicharan; Noorullah Maqsoodi; Paul T Rubery; Addisu Mesfin; Roman A Eliseev
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Maximilian Lenz; Kaliye Mohamud; Jan Bredow; Stavros Oikonomidis; Peer Eysel; Max Joseph Scheyerer
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2021-01-05
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.