Mohamed Macki1, Mohamad Bydon1, Robby Weingart2, Daniel Sciubba3, Jean-Paul Wolinsky3, Ziya L Gokaslan1, Ali Bydon1, Timothy Witham4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America; Johns Hopkins Spinal Biomechanics and Surgical Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. 2. Johns Hopkins Spinal Biomechanics and Surgical Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. Electronic address: twitham2@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (PLIF/TLIF) may improve the outcomes in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. This study aims to compare outcomes after posterolateral fusion (PLF) only versus PLF with interbody fusion (PLF+PLIF/TLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed103 patients who underwent first-time instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Anterior techniques and multilevel interbody fusions were excluded. All patients were followed for at least 2 years postoperatively. Clinical outcomes including back pain, radiculopathy, weakness, sensory deficits, and loss of bowel/bladder function were ascertained from clinic notes. Radiographic measures were calculated with Tillard percentage of spondylolisthesis. Reoperation for progression of degenerative disease, a primary endpoint, was indicated for all patients with (1) persistent or new-onset neurological symptoms; and (2) radiographic imaging that correlated with clinical presentation. RESULTS: Of the 103 patients, 56.31% were managed with PLF and 43.69% with PLF+PLIF/TLIF. On radiographic studies, spondylolisthesis improved by a mean of 13.06% after PLF+PLIF/TLIF versus 5.67% after PLF (p<0.001). In comparison to PLF+PLIF/TLIF, patients undergoing PLF experienced higher rates of postoperative improvement in back pain, sensory deficits, motor weakness, radiculopathy, and bowel/bladder difficulty; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. The PLF cohort had a significantly higher incidence of reoperation (p=0.011) and pseudoarthrosis/instrumentation failure (p=0.043). In the logistical analyses, non-interbody fusion was the strongest predictor of reoperation for progression of degenerative disease. CONCLUSION: Compared to PLF only, PLF+PLIF/TLIF were statistically significantly associated with a greater correction of spondylolisthesis. Patients with interbody fusions were less likely to undergo reoperation for degenerative disease progression compared to non-interbody fusions. However, greater listhesis correction and decreased reoperation in the PLF+PLIF/TLIF cohort should be weighed with favorable clinical outcomes in the PLF cohort.
OBJECTIVE: Posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (PLIF/TLIF) may improve the outcomes in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. This study aims to compare outcomes after posterolateral fusion (PLF) only versus PLF with interbody fusion (PLF+PLIF/TLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed103 patients who underwent first-time instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Anterior techniques and multilevel interbody fusions were excluded. All patients were followed for at least 2 years postoperatively. Clinical outcomes including back pain, radiculopathy, weakness, sensory deficits, and loss of bowel/bladder function were ascertained from clinic notes. Radiographic measures were calculated with Tillard percentage of spondylolisthesis. Reoperation for progression of degenerative disease, a primary endpoint, was indicated for all patients with (1) persistent or new-onset neurological symptoms; and (2) radiographic imaging that correlated with clinical presentation. RESULTS: Of the 103 patients, 56.31% were managed with PLF and 43.69% with PLF+PLIF/TLIF. On radiographic studies, spondylolisthesis improved by a mean of 13.06% after PLF+PLIF/TLIF versus 5.67% after PLF (p<0.001). In comparison to PLF+PLIF/TLIF, patients undergoing PLF experienced higher rates of postoperative improvement in back pain, sensory deficits, motor weakness, radiculopathy, and bowel/bladder difficulty; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. The PLF cohort had a significantly higher incidence of reoperation (p=0.011) and pseudoarthrosis/instrumentation failure (p=0.043). In the logistical analyses, non-interbody fusion was the strongest predictor of reoperation for progression of degenerative disease. CONCLUSION: Compared to PLF only, PLF+PLIF/TLIF were statistically significantly associated with a greater correction of spondylolisthesis. Patients with interbody fusions were less likely to undergo reoperation for degenerative disease progression compared to non-interbody fusions. However, greater listhesis correction and decreased reoperation in the PLF+PLIF/TLIF cohort should be weighed with favorable clinical outcomes in the PLF cohort.
Authors: Zhao Lang; Jing-Sheng Li; Felix Yang; Yan Yu; Kamran Khan; Louis G Jenis; Thomas D Cha; James D Kang; Guoan Li Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 3.134