Dataset Information

Etiology-Based Classification of Adjacent Segment Disease Following Lumbar Spine Fusion.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adjacent segment disease (ASDz) is a potential complication following lumbar spinal fusion. A common nomenclature based on etiology and ASDz type does not exist and is needed to assist with clinical prognostication, decision making, and management.

Questions/purposes

The objective of this study was to develop an etiology-based classification system for ASDz following lumbar fusion.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 65 consecutive patients who had undergone both a lumbar fusion performed by a single surgeon and a subsequent procedure for ASDz. We established an etiology-based classification system for lumbar ASDz with the following six categories: "degenerative" (degenerative disc disease or spondylosis), "neurologic" (disc herniation, stenosis), "instability" (spondylolisthesis, rotatory subluxation), "deformity" (scoliosis, kyphosis), "complex" (fracture, infection), or "combined." Based on this scheme, we determined the rate of ASDz in each etiologic category.

Results

Of the 65 patients, 27 (41.5%) underwent surgery for neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy for adjacent-level stenosis or disc herniation and were classified as "neurologic." Ten patients (15.4%) had progressive degenerative disc pathology at the adjacent level and were classified as "degenerative." Ten patients (15.4%) had spondylolisthesis or instability and were classified as "instability," and three patients (4.6%) required revision surgery for adjacent-level kyphosis or scoliosis and were classified as "deformity." Fifteen patients (23.1%) had multiple diagnoses that included a combination of categories and were classified as "combined."

Conclusion

This is the first study to propose an etiology-based classification scheme of ASDz following lumbar spine fusion. This simple classification system may allow for the grouping and standardization of patients with similar pathologies and thus for more specific pre-operative diagnoses, personalized treatments, and improved outcome analyses.

SUBMITTER: Louie PK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7253547 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a well-known complication after interbody fusion. Pedicle screw-rod revision possesses sufficient strength and rigidity. However, is a surgical segment with rigid fixation necessary for ASD reoperation? This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effect of different instrumentation on lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for ASD treatment. METHODS:A validated L2~5 finite element (FE) model was modified for simulation. ASD was considered the level cranial to the upper-instrumented segment (L3/4). Bone graft fusion in LLIF with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation occurred at L4/5. The ASD segment for each group underwent a) LLIF + posterior extension of BPS, b) PLIF + posterior extension of BPS, c) LLIF + lateral screw, and d) stand-alone LLIF. The L3/4 range of motion (ROM), interbody cage stress and strain, screw-bone interface stress, cage-endplate interface stress, and L2/3 nucleus pulposus of intradiscal pressure (NP-IDP) analysis were calculated for comparisons among the four models. RESULTS:All reconstructive models displayed decreased motion at L3/4. Under each loading condition, the difference was not significant between models a and b, which provided the maximum ROM reduction (73.8 to 97.7% and 68.3 to 98.4%, respectively). Model c also provided a significant ROM reduction (64.9 to 77.5%). Model d provided a minimal restriction of the ROM (18.3 to 90.1%), which exceeded that of model a by 13.1 times for flexion-extension, 10.3 times for lateral bending and 4.8 times for rotation. Model b generated greater cage stress than other models, particularly for flexion. The maximum displacement of the cage and the peak stress of the cage-endplate interface were found to be the highest in model d under all loading conditions. For the screw-bone interface, the stress was much greater with lateral instrumentation than with posterior instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS:Stand-alone LLIF is likely to have limited stability, particularly for lateral bending and axial rotation. Posterior extension of BPS can provide reliable stability and excellent protective effects on instrumentation and endplates. However, LLIF with the use of an in situ screw may be an alternative for ASD reoperation.