Shun Okuwaki1, Masaki Tatsumura2, Hisanori Gamada3, Takeshi Ogawa2, Takeo Mammoto2, Atsushi Hirano2, Masashi Yamazaki3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kenpoku Medical Center Takahagi Kyodo Hospital, Japan. 2. Department of Orthopedics Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Tsukuba Hospital Mito Clinical Education and Training Center Mito Kyodo General Hospital, Japan. 3. Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Japan.
Spondylolysis is a defect of the pars interarticularis. In pseudoarthrotic spondylolysis
where pain is persistent even after conservative therapy, surgical treatment is an effective
treatment. Lumbosacral fusion is the most common surgery performed for spondylolysis with a
slipped vertebra. We avoid interbody fusion that causes adjacent intervertebral disorders,
and prefer repairing the pars defects by using the smiley face rod method to preserve the
mobile lumbar segments. Here, we describe the treatment and the bone fusion process, from
surgery to implant removal, in a patient with pseudoarthrotic spondylosis who showed
reduction of the slipped vertebra and bone fusion on long-term follow-up.
Case presentation
A 14-year-old boy presented with complaints of chronic severe lower back pain during sports
activity. Neurological examination at his first visit revealed no muscle weakness or sensory
disturbances and normal deep tendon reflexes in both lower limbs. Sciatic nerve tension
tests were negative. Plain radiographs of the lumbar spine revealed pars defects at the 5th
lumbar vertebra (L5) with grade 1 slip per the Meyerding classification. Anterior
translational movement was 6.9 mm and the percentage of slip on the Taillard index was 16.9%
(Figure 1). Computed tomography (CT) revealed bilateral pseudoarthrosis of the pars
interarticularis at L5. Short tau inversion recovery magnetic resonance images (MRI) showed
no signs of bone marrow edema and central or foraminal stenosis (Figure 2). He was diagnosed with pseudoarthrotic spondylolysis, and conservative treatment was
started with a brace and physical therapy. However, his pain did not resolve, and the
patient was unable to return to his sports activity. The smiley face rod surgical method was
advised, and both the patient and his parents consented to its use.
Figure 1
Preoperative anteroposterior (A) and lateral (B) radiographs of the lumbar spine. The
dynamic views are shown in flexion (C) and extension (D). Radiographs revealed pars
defects at the 5th lumbar vertebra (L5) with grade 1 slip per the Meyerding
classification. The anterior translational movement was 6.9 mm and the Taillard index
was 16.9%.
Figure 2
Preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of L5:
Sagittal CT scan of the right (A) and left side (B). The axial CT image (C) of the
pars defect. Short tau inversion recovery axial image (D) showing no bone marrow
edema.
Preoperative anteroposterior (A) and lateral (B) radiographs of the lumbar spine. The
dynamic views are shown in flexion (C) and extension (D). Radiographs revealed pars
defects at the 5th lumbar vertebra (L5) with grade 1 slip per the Meyerding
classification. The anterior translational movement was 6.9 mm and the Taillard index
was 16.9%.Preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of L5:
Sagittal CT scan of the right (A) and left side (B). The axial CT image (C) of the
pars defect. Short tau inversion recovery axial image (D) showing no bone marrow
edema.Two skin incisions were made (4 cm in length) laterally from the midline and the paraspinal
musculature was elevated laterally to expose the lamina by the Wiltse’s approach. The defect
in the pars was exposed, and the synovium and pseudocapsule of the pars interarticularis
were removed. A burr was used to decorticate the hardened pars interarticularis. A pedicle
screw was inserted using the Weinstein method. Bone graft was harvested from the iliac
crest, placed in the defect, and impacted before insertion of the screw. Thereafter, a rod
was contoured in a U shape, placed just caudal to the spinous process, and attached to each
pedicle screw. The rod was positioned subcutaneously to penetrate the interspinous ligament
to ensure the continuity of the ligament. The reduction tool was used to eliminate the gap
in the pars interarticularis and fix the pedicle screw and rod. Bumping the bended rod
against the spinous process, the loose lamina was fixed firmly. Final fluoroscopic imaging
confirmed the correct position of the screw and rod and the reduction of the slipped
vertebra (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Postoperative anteroposterior (A) and lateral (B) radiographs
Postoperative anteroposterior (A) and lateral (B) radiographs
Postoperative treatment
Standing and walking commenced 2 days postoperatively with a semi-rigid brace.
Rehabilitation measured that comprised passive and active movements of the lower limbs
were initiated immediately. The patient performed isometric exercises for trunk muscles
and stretching for tight hamstrings. After 1-month postoperatively, the lower limb muscles
were strengthened using static exercises and electro-stimulation; flexion-extension
movements of the spine were avoided. He continued to wear the brace for 3 months
postoperatively, and healing began from the lateral side as demonstrated on CT. The
patient was permitted to start exercises such as jogging and axial rotations. Six months
postoperatively, partial fusion was confirmed from the cephalad direction up to both sides
in the sagittal section and complete bone fusion was confirmed 18 months postoperatively
(Figures 4 and 5). One year postoperatively, the anterior translational movement and percentage of
slip were 0 mm and 0%, respectively (Figure
6). Clinical outcome was evaluated pre- and postoperatively using a 100-mm Visual
Analog Scale (VAS) with 0 representing no pain and 100 representing maximum pain. One year
postoperatively, the VAS score improved from 20 to 0. Implant removal was performed 3
years postoperatively (Figure 7). The patient remained asymptomatic without any repositioning of the slipped
vertebra after the implant removal.
Figure 4
Postoperative axial computed tomography (CT) scan showing compression over the pars
defect (A). CT scans demonstrate fracture healing 3 months postoperatively (B) and
partial bone union 6 months postoperatively (C). Eighteen months postoperatively,
the CT scan indicates the union of the pars defect (D).
Figure 5
Follow-up computed tomography (CT) images of the lumbar spine on the right side
(A–D), postoperative CT scan at 3 months, 6 months, and 18 months postoperatively,
and of the left side (E–H).
Figure 6
Postoperative radiographs show reduction with smiley face rod method 1-year
postoperatively; anteroposterior (A), lateral (B), dynamic flexion (C), and
extension (D). The slipped vertebra is reduced, and no slippage and screw loosening
are seen on the lateral radiograph.
Figure 7
Postoperative radiograph after the implant removal; anteroposterior view (A),
lateral view (B), and dynamic flexion (C) and extension (D). Radiographs show
maintained reduction and reduced instability.
Postoperative axial computed tomography (CT) scan showing compression over the pars
defect (A). CT scans demonstrate fracture healing 3 months postoperatively (B) and
partial bone union 6 months postoperatively (C). Eighteen months postoperatively,
the CT scan indicates the union of the pars defect (D).Follow-up computed tomography (CT) images of the lumbar spine on the right side
(A–D), postoperative CT scan at 3 months, 6 months, and 18 months postoperatively,
and of the left side (E–H).Postoperative radiographs show reduction with smiley face rod method 1-year
postoperatively; anteroposterior (A), lateral (B), dynamic flexion (C), and
extension (D). The slipped vertebra is reduced, and no slippage and screw loosening
are seen on the lateral radiograph.Postoperative radiograph after the implant removal; anteroposterior view (A),
lateral view (B), and dynamic flexion (C) and extension (D). Radiographs show
maintained reduction and reduced instability.
Discussion
Lumbar spondylolysis is a defect of the pars interarticularis caused by a stress
fracture[1]). Repetitive
hyperextension of the lumbar spine may contribute to this disorder. The treatment of acute
lumbar spondylolysis should include a rest period, with bracing to allow healing, and
rehabilitation, and ensure return to sports activities once patients are
asymptomatic[2]). Commonly,
bone fusion may not be achieved through conservative treatment that includes modification of
posture, physical therapy, and bracing with a thoracolumbar and sacral orthosis.
Inflammatory events in the pseudoarthrotic pars defects and adjoining facet joints may cause
lower back pain in pseudoarthrotic spondylolysis[3]), resulting in progressive spondylolisthesis in up to 43–74% of
all patients[4]). Additionally,
associated adverse effects such as sciatica caused by intervertebral foraminal stenosis can
occur. Therefore, it is important that patients undergo a long-term follow-up. Our patient
had chronic lower back pain without sciatica that was resistant to conservative treatment;
thus, surgical treatment was considered. Historically, surgical management of spondylolysis
includes posterior and posterolateral fusion and pars interarticularis repair[5], [6]). Lumbar interbody fusion results in loss of movement in a
segment and may reduce pain. However, surgical fusion of the lumbar spine may result in an
eventual adjacent level arthrosis with symptomatic degeneration warranting additional
surgery in 16.5% and 36.1% of patients in 5 and 10 years, respectively[7]); and an increased risk of need for
revision surgery[8]). Direct pars
interarticularis repair has the advantage of preserving mobile segments and dealing directly
with the anatomical defect.Several methods of direct repair with good or excellent results have been reported.
Buck[9]) first described the
technique of direct repair by filling the gap in the defect with iliac cancellous autograft
and placing screws directly through the defect itself. The other methods such as the Scott
technique[10]), used wiring
to stabilize the posterior arch under the transverse process. Although, a lot of surgeons
have reported satisfactory outcomes with these methods, these techniques have some
shortcomings. Proper placement of screws or cerclage wire is difficult, it decreases the
area for bone grafting, and the screws and wires are not strong[11],[12],[13]). Sublaminar hook, pedicle screw combinations, and pedicle
screw-rod-hook constructs have been used. Biomechanical studies have shown the latter
construct to be the most stable[14]). However, numerous problems have been encountered with this
technique, including difficulty in screw placement, screw loosening and breakage, and a high
rate of failure. Further, it is difficult to reposition the slipped vertebra[15]). The smiley face rod method
employs a direct repair, places screws on the pedicles of the involved vertebra, and fixes
the loose posterior arch with a solid rod bent into a U shape. This method is stabilized
with an intralaminar rod construct that consists of a pair of multiaxial pedicle screws
connected with a modular rod that passes beneath the spinous process of the same segment.
Tightening the rod to the screws compresses the bone grafted over the pars defect. This
system provides a rigid intrasegmental fixation, without interfering with intersegmental
motion, and good reduction in low-grade spondylolisthesis[16], [17]).Clinical results were excellent 3 years postoperatively. Radiographically, bone fusion was
achieved in this case and the slipped vertebra had reduced. Literature on clinical outcomes,
such as solid bone fusion and accurate slip reduction, is limited; and there are no reports
on implant removal. It seemed essential to demonstrate the effectiveness of the smiley face
rod method even after the implant removal. This surgical technique allows for implant
removal after bone fusion and preserves adjacent segment movement; therefore, it is
particularly suitable for adolescent patients. Studies with longer follow-ups are needed to
evaluate the quantum of sliding and disc degeneration associated with this method.
Authors: James A Ulibarri; Paul A Anderson; Tony Escarcega; David Mann; Kenneth J Noonan Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 3.468