Dataset Information

Symptomatic adjacent segment pathology after posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.

ABSTRACT: The incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment pathology (ASP) after fusion surgery for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) has been reported to be relatively low compared with other lumbar disease entities. However, there has been no study of symptomatic ASP incidence using posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with pedicle screw instrumentation. We investigated the incidence of symptomatic ASP after PLIF with pedicle screw instrumentation for adult low-grade IS and identified significant risk factors for symptomatic ASP. We retrospectively studied records of 40 consecutive patients who underwent PLIF with pedicle screw instrumentation at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Rosai Hospital, Amagasaki, Japan. The patients were followed for ≥ 4 years. Patients' medical records were retrospectively examined for evidence of symptomatic ASP. Age at time of surgery, sex, fusion level, whole lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, preexisting laminar inclination angle, and facet tropism at the cranial fusion segment were analyzed to identify risk factors for symptomatic ASP. Four patients (ASP group) developed symptomatic ASP at the cranial segment adjacent to the fusion. There were no significant differences in age, sex, fusion level, lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, or facet tropism at the cranial segment adjacent to the fusion between the ASP and the non-ASP groups. In contrast, laminar inclination angle at the cranial vertebra adjacent to the fusion was significantly higher in the ASP group than in the non-ASP group. Four patients (10%) developed symptomatic ASP after PLIF with transpedicular fixation for adult low-grade IS. Preexisting laminar horizontalization at the cranial vertebra adjacent to the fusion was a significant risk factor for symptomatic ASP.

SUBMITTER: Sakaura H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3854583 | biostudies-other | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (modified MIS-TLIF) versus conventional TLIF in the lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.Materials and methodsForty patients with 1-level lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. Perioperative indexes including operation time, intraoperative bleeding, bed rest time, time of hospitalisation stay and the accuracy rate of screw placement were analysed. Preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed.ResultsThe operation time in the modified MIS-TLIF group was longer than the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss in the modified MIS-TLIF group was less than the comparative group (p < 0.05). The average bed rest time and hospitalisation stay in the modified MIS-TLIF group was shorter than conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). The screw placement in the modified MIS-TLIF group was more precisely than that in the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the improvement of VAS and ODI in the modified MIS-TLIF group were lower than that in the conventional TLIF group 1 and 6 months after operation (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the VAS and ODI score between the two group at the last follow-up (p > 0.05).ConclusionNavigation and microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree I or II) with potential advantages including less injury, less blood loss, higher screw accuracy and faster recovery after operation.The translational potential of this articleCompared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has a huge advantage in surgery treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Hence, this article provided a better surgery method to deal with lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, and robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion will be adopted in the future.

Project description:IntroductionThe demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.MethodsSearches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.ResultsOf a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results.Trial registrationProspero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

Dataset Information

Symptomatic adjacent segment pathology after posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets