Adjacent Segment Degeneration After Lumbar Dynamic Stabilization Using Pedicle Screws and a Nitinol Spring Rod System With 2-year Minimum Follow-up

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 409-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Hwa Heo ◽  
Yong Jun Cho ◽  
Sung Min Cho ◽  
Hyun Chul Choi ◽  
Suk Hyung Kang
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Rod System ◽  
Lumbar Dynamic Stabilization

scholarly journals Radiological adjacent-segment degeneration in L4–5 spondylolisthesis: comparison between dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao-Hung Kuo ◽  
Wen-Cheng Huang ◽  
Jau-Ching Wu ◽  
Tsung-Hsi Tu ◽  
Li-Yu Fay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Degeneration ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Secondary Surgery

OBJECTIVEPedicle screw–based dynamic stabilization has been an alternative to conventional lumbar fusion for the surgical management of low-grade spondylolisthesis. However, the true effect of dynamic stabilization on adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) remains undetermined. Authors of this study aimed to investigate the incidence of ASD and to compare the clinical outcomes of dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).METHODSThe records of consecutive patients with Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis who had undergone surgical management at L4–5 in the period from 2007 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgery performed: Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) group and MI-TLIF group. Pre- and postoperative radiological evaluations, including radiography, CT, and MRI studies, were compared. Adjacent discs were evaluated using 4 radiological parameters: instability (antero- or retrolisthesis), disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification), endplate degeneration (Modic classification), and range of motion (ROM). Clinical outcomes, measured with the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, were also compared.RESULTSA total of 79 patients with L4–5 degenerative spondylolisthesis were included in the analysis. During a mean follow-up of 35.2 months (range 24–89 months), there were 56 patients in the DDS group and 23 in the MI-TLIF group. Prior to surgery, both groups were very similar in demographic, radiological, and clinical data. Postoperation, both groups had similarly significant improvement in clinical outcomes (VAS, ODI, and JOA scores) at each time point of evaluation. There was a lower chance of disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification) of the adjacent discs in the DDS group than in the MI-TLIF group (17% vs 37%, p = 0.01). However, the DDS and MI-TLIF groups had similar rates of instability (15.2% vs 17.4%, respectively, p = 0.92) and endplate degeneration (1.8% vs 6.5%, p = 0.30) at the cranial (L3–4) and caudal (L5–S1) adjacent levels after surgery. The mean ROM in the cranial and caudal levels was also similar in the two groups. None of the patients required secondary surgery for any ASD (defined by radiological criteria).CONCLUSIONSThe clinical improvements after DDS were similar to those following MI-TLIF for L4–5 Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at 3 years postoperation. According to radiological evaluations, there was a lower chance of disc degeneration in the adjacent levels of the patients who had undergone DDS. However, other radiological signs of ASD, including instability, endplate degeneration, and ROM, were similar between the two groups. Although none of the patients in the present series required secondary surgery, a longer follow-up and a larger number of patients would be necessary to corroborate the protective effect of DDS against ASD.

scholarly journals Dynamic stabilization for degenerative diseases in the lumbar spine: 2 years results

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Hosny Khalifa ◽  
Timo Stübig ◽  
Oliver Meier ◽  
Christian Walter Müller
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Disease ◽  
Vas Scores ◽  
Posterior Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
The Mean

Following lumbar fusion, adjacent segment degeneration has been frequently reported. Dynamic systems are believed to reduce main fusion drawbacks. We conducted a retrospective study on patients with degenerative lumbar disease treated with posterior dynamic stabilization with monoaxial hinged pedicular screws and lumbar decompression. VAS and ODI were used to compare clinical outcomes. As radiological outcomes, LL and SVA were used. 51 patients were included with an average follow-up of 24 months. 13 patients were revised because of postoperative radiculopathy (n=4), subcutaneous hematoma(n=2), L5 screw malposition (n=1) and adjacent segment disease (n=6). The mean ODI score 41 preoperatively compared to 36 postoperatively. The mean VAS scores for back and leg pain were 5.3 and 4.2, respectively compared to 4.5 and 4.0 post-operatively. The mean SVA was 5.3 cm pre-operatively, and 5.7 cm postoperatively. The mean LL was 47.5° preoperatively and 45.5° postoperatively. From our data, whichfail to show significant improvements andreflect a high revision rate, we cannot generally recommend dynamic stabilization as an alternative to fusion. Comparative trials with longer follow-ups are required.

scholarly journals Posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization instead of arthrodesis for symptomatic adjacent-segment degenerative stenosis: description of a novel technique

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. E5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hazem Mashaly ◽  
Erin E. Paschel ◽  
Nicolas K. Khattar ◽  
Ezequiel Goldschmidt ◽  
Peter C. Gerszten
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Neurogenic Claudication ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Fusion Surgery ◽  
Instrumented Fusion ◽  
Novel Technique ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lumbar Dynamic Stabilization

OBJECTIVE The development of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease (ASD) is a well-recognized consequence of lumbar fusion surgery. Extension of a fusion to a diseased segment may only lead to subsequent adjacent-segment degeneration. The authors report the use of a novel technique that uses dynamic stabilization instead of arthrodesis for the surgical treatment of symptomatic ASD following a prior lumbar instrumented fusion. METHODS A cohort of 28 consecutive patients was evaluated who developed symptomatic stenosis immediately adjacent to a previous lumbar instrumented fusion. All patients had symptoms of neurogenic claudication refractory to nonsurgical treatment and were surgically treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization instead of extending the fusion construct using a posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization system. Preoperative symptoms, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and perioperative complications were recorded. Clinical outcome was gauged by comparing VAS scores prior to surgery and at the time of last follow-up. RESULTS The mean follow-up duration was 52 months (range 17–94 months). The mean interval from the time of primary fusion surgery to the dynamic stabilization surgery was 40 months (range 10–96 months). The mean patient age was 51 years (range 29–76 years). There were 19 (68%) men and 9 (32%) women. Twenty-three patients (82%) presented with low-back pain at time of surgery, whereas 24 patients (86%) presented with lower-extremity symptoms only. Twenty-four patients (86%) underwent operations that were performed using single-level dynamic stabilization, 3 patients (11%) were treated at 2 levels, and 1 patient underwent 3-level decompression and dynamic stabilization. The most commonly affected and treated level (46%) was L3–4. The mean preoperative VAS pain score was 8, whereas the mean postoperative score was 3. No patient required surgery for symptomatic degeneration rostral to the level of dynamic stabilization during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS The use of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization may offer a valid and safe option for the management of patients who develop ASD rostral to a previously instrumented arthrodesis. The technique may serve as an alternative to multilevel arthrodesis in this patient population. By implanting a dynamic stabilization device instead of an extension of a rigid construct, this might translate into a reduction in the development of yet another level of ASD.

Topping-off technique for stabilization of lumbar degenerative instabilities in 322 patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 366-372
Author(s):  
Sandro M. Krieg ◽  
Nele Balser ◽  
Haiko Pape ◽  
Nico Sollmann ◽  
Lucia Albers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Smooth Transition ◽  
Lumbar Pain ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Rod System ◽  
Reoperation Rates ◽  
Topping Off

OBJECTIVESemi-rigid instrumentation (SRI) was introduced to take advantage of the concept of load sharing in surgery for spinal stabilization. The authors investigated a topping-off technique in which interbody fusion is not performed in the uppermost motion segment, thus creating a smooth transition from stabilized to free motion segments. SRI using the topping-off technique also reduces the motion of the adjacent segments, which may reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD), a frequently observed sequela of instrumentation and fusion, but this technique may also increase the possibility of screw loosening (SL). In the present study the authors aimed to systematically evaluate reoperation rates, clinical outcomes, and potential risk factors and incidences of ASD and SL for this novel approach.METHODSThe authors collected data for the first 322 patients enrolled at their institution from 2009 to 2015 who underwent surgery performed using the topping-off technique. Reoperation rates, patient satisfaction, and other outcome measures were evaluated. All patients underwent pedicle screw–based semi-rigid stabilization of the lumbar spine with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rod system.RESULTSImplantation of PEEK rods during revision surgery was performed in 59.9% of patients. A median of 3 motion segments (range 1–5 segments) were included and a median of 2 motion segments (range 0–4 segments) were fused. A total of 89.4% of patients underwent fusion, 73.3% by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), 18.4% by anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), 3.1% by extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), 0.3% by oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and 4.9% by combined approaches in the same surgery. Combined radicular and lumbar pain according to a visual analog scale was reduced from 7.9 ± 1.0 to 4.0 ± 3.1, with 56.2% of patients indicating benefit from surgery. After maximum follow-up (4.3 ± 1.8 years), the reoperation rate was 16.4%.CONCLUSIONSThe PEEK rod concept including the topping-off principle seems safe, with at least average patient satisfaction in this patient group. Considering the low rate of first-tier surgeries, the presented results seem at least comparable to those of most other series. Follow-up studies are needed to determine long-term outcomes, particularly with respect to ASD, which might be reduced by the presented approach.

Obesity may be associated with adjacent-segment degeneration after single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in spinopelvic-mismatched patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-88
Author(s):  
Ping-Guo Duan ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Minghao Wang ◽  
Andrew K. Chan ◽  
Bo Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Surgery Rates

OBJECTIVEIn this study, the authors’ aim was to investigate whether obesity affects surgery rates for adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis.METHODSPatients who underwent single-level TLIF for spondylolisthesis at the University of California, San Francisco, from 2006 to 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were a minimum 2-year follow-up, single-level TLIF, and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Exclusion criteria were trauma, tumor, infection, multilevel fusions, non-TLIF fusions, or less than a 2-year follow-up. Patient demographic data were collected, and an analysis of spinopelvic parameters was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: mismatched, or pelvic incidence (PI) minus lumbar lordosis (LL) ≥ 10°; and balanced, or PI-LL < 10°. Within the two groups, the patients were further classified by BMI (< 30 and ≥ 30 kg/m2). Patients were then evaluated for surgery for ASD, matched by BMI and PI-LL parameters.RESULTSA total of 190 patients met inclusion criteria (72 males and 118 females, mean age 59.57 ± 12.39 years). The average follow-up was 40.21 ± 20.42 months (range 24–135 months). In total, 24 patients (12.63% of 190) underwent surgery for ASD. Within the entire cohort, 82 patients were in the mismatched group, and 108 patients were in the balanced group. Within the mismatched group, adjacent-segment surgeries occurred at the following rates: BMI < 30 kg/m2, 2.1% (1/48); and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, 17.6% (6/34). Significant differences were seen between patients with BMI ≥ 30 and BMI < 30 (p = 0.018). A receiver operating characteristic curve for BMI as a predictor for ASD was established, with an AUC of 0.69 (95% CI 0.49–0.90). The optimal BMI cutoff value determined by the Youden index is 29.95 (sensitivity 0.857; specificity 0.627). However, in the balanced PI-LL group (108/190 patients), there was no difference in surgery rates for ASD among the patients with different BMIs (p > 0.05).CONCLUSIONSIn patients who have a PI-LL mismatch, obesity may be associated with an increased risk of surgery for ASD after TLIF, but in obese patients without PI-LL mismatch, this association was not observed.

scholarly journals Comparison of pedicle screw–based dynamic stabilization and fusion surgery in the treatment of radiographic adjacent-segment degeneration: a retrospective analysis of single L5–S1 degenerative spondylosis covering 4 years

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 706-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Han ◽  
Jianguang Sun ◽  
Chenghan Luo ◽  
Shilei Huang ◽  
Liren Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Spinopelvic Parameters ◽  
Fusion Surgery ◽  
Spinal Stabilization ◽  
Pfirrmann Grade

OBJECTIVE Pedicle screw–based dynamic spinal stabilization systems (PDSs) were devised to decrease, theoretically, the risk of long-term complications such as adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) after lumbar fusion surgery. However, to date, there have been few studies that fully proved that a PDS can reduce the risk of ASD. The purpose of this study was to examine whether a PDS can influence the incidence of ASD and to discuss the surgical coping strategy for L5–S1 segmental spondylosis with preexisting L4–5 degeneration with no related symptoms or signs. METHODS This study retrospectively compared 62 cases of L5–S1 segmental spondylosis in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (n = 31) or K-Rod dynamic stabilization (n = 31) with a minimum of 4 years' follow-up. The authors measured the intervertebral heights and spinopelvic parameters on standing lateral radiographs and evaluated preexisting ASD on preoperative MR images using the modified Pfirrmann grading system. Radiographic ASD was evaluated according to the results of radiography during follow-up. RESULTS All 62 patients achieved remission of their neurological symptoms without surgical complications. The Kaplan-Meier curve and Cox proportional-hazards model showed no statistically significant differences between the 2 surgical groups in the incidence of radiographic ASD (p > 0.05). In contrast, the incidence of radiographic ASD was 8.75 times (95% CI 1.955–39.140; p = 0.005) higher in the patients with a preoperative modified Pfirrmann grade higher than 3 than it was in patients with a modified Pfirrmann grade of 3 or lower. In addition, no statistical significance was found for other risk factors such as age, sex, and spinopelvic parameters. CONCLUSIONS Pedicle screw–based dynamic spinal stabilization systems were not found to be superior to posterior lumbar interbody fusion in preventing radiographic ASD (L4–5) during the midterm follow-up. Preexisting ASD with a modified Pfirrmann grade higher than 3 was a risk factor for radiographic ASD. In the treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbosacral spine, the authors found that both of these methods are feasible. Also, the authors believe that no extra treatment, other than observation, is needed for preexisting degeneration in L4–5 without any clinical symptoms or signs.

scholarly journals Is the Goutallier grade of multifidus fat infiltration associated with adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion?

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Ping-Guo Duan ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Jeremy M. V. Guinn ◽  
Joshua Rivera ◽  
Sigurd H. Berven ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Fat Infiltration ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Goutallier Classification ◽  
Spinopelvic Parameter

OBJECTIVEThe aim of this study was to investigate whether fat infiltration of the lumbar multifidus (LM) muscle affects revision surgery rates for adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) after L4–5 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis.METHODSA total of 178 patients undergoing single-level L4–5 TLIF for spondylolisthesis (2006 to 2016) were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were a minimum 2-year follow-up, preoperative MR images and radiographs, and single-level L4–5 TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Twenty-three patients underwent revision surgery for ASD during the follow-up. Another 23 patients without ASD were matched with the patients with ASD. Demographic data, Roussouly curvature type, and spinopelvic parameter data were collected. The fat infiltration of the LM muscle (L3, L4, and L5) was evaluated on preoperative MRI using the Goutallier classification system.RESULTSA total of 46 patients were evaluated. There were no differences in age, sex, BMI, or spinopelvic parameters with regard to patients with and those without ASD (p > 0.05). Fat infiltration of the LM was significantly greater in the patients with ASD than in those without ASD (p = 0.029). Fat infiltration was most significant at L3 in patients with ASD than in patients without ASD (p = 0.017). At L4 and L5, there was an increasing trend of fat infiltration in the patients with ASD than in those without ASD, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.354 for L4 and p = 0.077 for L5).CONCLUSIONSFat infiltration of the LM may be associated with ASD after L4–5 TLIF for spondylolisthesis. Fat infiltration at L3 may also be associated with ASD at L3–4 after L4–5 TLIF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document