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.

scholarly journals Topping-Off Technology versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Wang ◽  
Xiangyao Sun ◽  
Tongtong Zhang ◽  
Siyuan Sun ◽  
Chao Kong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Reoperation Rates ◽  
Topping Off

The treatment effects of topping-off technique were still controversial. This study compared all available data on postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes of topping-off technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were systematically reviewed. Variations included radiographical adjacent segment disease (RASD), clinical adjacent segment disease (CASD), global lumbar lordosis (GLL), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back (VAS-B) and leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), reoperation rates, and complication rates. Sixteen studies, including 1372 cases, were selected for the analysis. Rates of proximal RASD (P=0.0004), distal RASD (P=0.03), postoperative VAS-B (P=0.0001), postoperative VAS-L (P=0.02), EBL (P=0.007), and duration of surgery (P=0.02) were significantly lower in topping-off group than those in PLIF group. Postoperative ODI after 3 years (P=0.04) in the topping-off group was significantly less than that in the PLIF group. There was no significant difference in the rates of CASD (P=0.06), postoperative GLL (P=0.14), postoperative ODI within 3 years (P=0.24), and postoperative JOA (P=0.70) and in reoperation rates (P=0.32) and complication rates (P=0.27) between topping-off group and PLIF. The results confirmed that topping-off technique could effectively prevent ASDs after lumbar internal fixation. However, this effect is effective in preventing RASD. Topping-off technique is more effective in improving the subjective feelings of patients rather than objective motor functions compared with PLIF. With the development of surgical techniques, both topping-off technique and PLIF are safe.

scholarly journals Dynamic Stabilization Adjacent to Fusion versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Xiangyao Sun ◽  
Zhaoxiong Chen ◽  
Siyuan Sun ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Tongtong Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Hybrid Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Disease ◽  
Topping Off

This study evaluated differences in outcome variables between dynamic stabilization adjacent to fusion (DATF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane was performed. The variables of interest included clinical adjacent segment pathologies (CASPs), radiological adjacent segment pathologies (RASPs), lumbar lordosis (LL), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back (VAS-B) and leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery (DS), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and reoperation rate. Nine articles identified as meeting all of the inclusion criteria. DATF was better than PLIF in proximal RASP, CASP, and ODI during 3 months follow-up, VAS-L. However, no significant difference between DATF and PLIF was found in distal RASP, LL, JOA score, VAS-B, ODI after 3 months follow-up, complication rates, and reoperation rate. These further confirmed that DATF could decrease the proximal ASP both symptomatically and radiographically as compared to fusion group; however, the influence of DATF on functional outcome was similar with PLIF. The differences between hybrid surgery and topping-off technique were located in DS and EBL in comparison with PLIF. Our study confirmed that DATF could decrease the proximal ASP both symptomatically and radiographically as compared to the fusion group; however, the influence of DATF on functional outcome was similar with PLIF. The difference between hybrid surgery and topping-off technique was not significant in treatment outcomes.

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.

Outcomes of 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironobu Sakaura ◽  
Tomoya Yamashita ◽  
Toshitada Miwa ◽  
Kenji Ohzono ◽  
Tetsuo Ohwada
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Single Level ◽  
The Mean

Object A systematic review concerning surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) showed that a satisfactory clinical outcome was significantly more likely with adjunctive spinal fusion than with decompression alone. However, the role of adjunctive fusion and the optimal type of fusion remain controversial. Therefore, operative management for multilevel DS raises more complicated issues. The purpose of this retrospective study was to elucidate clinical and radiological outcomes after 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS with the least bias in determination of operative procedure. Methods Since 2005, all patients surgically treated for lumbar DS at the authors' hospital have been treated using posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with pedicle screws, irrespective of severity of slippage, patient age, or bone quality. The authors conducted a retrospective review of 20 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS and had been followed up for 2 years or longer (2-level PLIF group). They also analyzed data from 92 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent single-level PLIF for single-level DS during the same time period and had been followed for at least 2 years (1-level PLIF group). This second group served as a control. Clinical status was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Fusion status and sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine were assessed by comparing serial plain radiographs. Surgery-related complications and the need for additional surgery were evaluated. Results The mean JOA score improved significantly from 12.8 points before surgery to 20.4 points at the latest follow-up in the 2-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 51.8%), and from 14.2 points preoperatively to 22.5 points at the latest follow-up in the single-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 55.3%). At the final follow-up, 95.0% of patients in the 2-level PLIF group and 96.7% of those in the 1-level PLIF group had achieved solid spinal fusion, and the mean sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine was more lordotic than before surgery in both groups. Early surgery-related complications, including transient neurological complications, occurred in 6 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (30.0%) and 11 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (12.0%). Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease was found in 4 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (20.0%) and 10 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (10.9%). Conclusions The clinical outcome of 2-level PLIF for 2-level lumbar DS was satisfactory, although surgery-related complications including symptomatic adjacent-segment disease were not negligible.

Reasons for revision following stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Austin Q. Nguyen ◽  
Jackson P. Harvey ◽  
Krishn Khanna ◽  
Bryce A. Basques ◽  
Garrett K. Harada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Preoperative Imaging ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Level ◽  
Posterior Decompression ◽  
Less Invasive ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Reoperation Rates

OBJECTIVE Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are alternative and less invasive techniques to stabilize the spine and indirectly decompress the neural elements compared with open posterior approaches. While reoperation rates have been described for open posterior lumbar surgery, there are sparse data on reoperation rates following these less invasive procedures without direct posterior decompression. This study aimed to evaluate the overall rate, cause, and timing of reoperation procedures following anterior or lateral lumbar interbody fusions without direct posterior decompression. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients indicated for an ALIF or LLIF for lumbar spine at a single academic institution. Patients who underwent concomitant posterior fusion or direct decompression surgeries were excluded. Rates, causes, and timing of reoperations were analyzed. Patients who underwent a revision decompression were matched with patients who did not require a reoperation, and preoperative imaging characteristics were analyzed to assess for risk factors for the reoperation. RESULTS The study cohort consisted of 529 patients with an average follow-up of 2.37 years; 40.3% (213/529) and 67.3% (356/529) of patients had a minimum of 2 years and 1 year of follow-up, respectively. The total revision rate was 5.7% (30/529), with same-level revision in 3.8% (20/529) and adjacent-level revision in 1.9% (10/529) of patients. Same-level revision patients had significantly shorter time to revision (7.14 months) than adjacent-level revision patients (31.91 months) (p < 0.0001). Fifty percent of same-level revisions were for a posterior decompression. After further analysis of decompression revisions, an increased preoperative canal area was significantly associated with a lower risk of further decompression revision compared to the control group (p = 0.015; OR 0.977, 95% CI 0.959–0.995). CONCLUSIONS There was a low reoperation rate after anterior or lateral lumbar interbody fusions without direct posterior decompression. The majority of same-level reoperations were due to a need for further decompression. Smaller preoperative canal diameters were associated with the need for revision decompression.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 958-963
Author(s):  
I. David Kaye ◽  
Terry Fang ◽  
Scott C. Wagner ◽  
Joseph S. Butler ◽  
Arjun Sebastian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Control Series ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Reoperation Rates ◽  
Level Group

Study Design: Retrospective, single institution, multisurgeon case control series. Objective: To determine whether there are differences in reoperation rates or outcomes for patients undergoing 2-level posterolateral fusion (PLF) augmented by a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at only one of the levels or at both. Methods: A total of 416 patients were identified who underwent 2-level PLF with a TLIF at either one of those levels (n = 183) or at both (n = 233) with greater than 1-year follow-up. Demographic, surgical, radiographic, and clinical data was reviewed for each patient. These included age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charleston Comorbidity Index, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and patient-reported outcome measures. Results: Each cohort underwent 24 reoperations. Although the number of overall reoperations was not significantly different ( P > .05), among the reoperation types, there were significantly more reoperations for adjacent segment disease in the 2-level group compared to the 1-level group (19 vs 12, P = .04). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between the groups ( P > .05). Although both groups experienced significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index ( P < .001) and Short Form–12 health questionnaire ( P < .001), there were no differences between improvements for 1- versus 2-level cohorts. Conclusions: For patients undergoing 2-level PLF in the setting of a TLIF, using a TLIF at one versus both levels does not seem to influence reoperation rates or outcomes. However, reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease are increased in the setting of a 2-level PLF augmented by a 2-level TLIF.

scholarly journals Comparison of Incidence of Adjacent Segment Pathology between Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Treatments for Lumbosacral Junction

Tomography ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 855-865
Author(s):  
Po-Kuan Wu ◽  
Meng-Huang Wu ◽  
Cheng-Min Shih ◽  
Yen-Kuang Lin ◽  
Kun-Hui Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbosacral Junction ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion

This research compared the incidence of adjacent segment pathology (ASP) between anterior interbody lumbar fusion (ALIF) treatment and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) treatment. Seventy patients were included in this retrospective study: 30 patients received ALIF treatment, and 40 patients received TLIF treatment at a single medical center between 2011 and 2020 with a follow-up of at least 12 months. The outcomes were radiographic adjacent segment pathology (RASP) and clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). The mean follow-up period was 42.10 ± 22.61 months in the ALIF group and 56.20 ± 29.91 months in the TLIF group. Following single-level lumbosacral fusion, ALIF is superior to TLIF in maintaining lumbar lordosis, whereas the risk of adjacent instability in the ALIF group is significantly higher. Regarding ASP, the incidence of overall RASP and CASP did not differ significantly between ALIF and TLIF groups.

scholarly journals Adjacent Segment Disease After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Series of 1000 Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 722-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinya Okuda ◽  
Tomoya Yamashita ◽  
Tomiya Matsumoto ◽  
Yukitaka Nagamoto ◽  
Tsuyoshi Sugiura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Time Periods

Study Design: Retrospective study. Objective: There have been few reports of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with large numbers and long follow-up. The purpose of this study was to investigate (1) ASD incidence and time periods after primary PLIF, (2) repeat ASD incidence and time periods, and (3) ASD incidence and time periods by fusion length, age, and preoperative pathologies. Methods: A total of 1000 patients (average age 67 years, average follow-up 8.3 years) who underwent PLIF for degenerative lumbar disorders were reviewed. ASD was defined as a symptomatic condition in which revision surgery was required. Results: The overall ASD rate was 9.0%, and the average ASD period was 4.7 years after primary surgery. With respect to clinical features of ASD, degenerative spondylolisthesis at the cranial fusion segment was the most frequent. In terms of repeat ASD, second and third ASD incidences were 1.1% and 0.4%, respectively. As for ASD by fusion length, age, and preoperative pathologies, ASD incidence was increased by fusion length, while the time period to ASD was significantly shorter in elderly patients and those with degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Conclusions: In the present study, the overall ASD incidence was 9.0%, and the average ASD period was 4.7 years after primary operation. Second and third ASD incidences were 1.1% and 0.4%, respectively. Fusion length affected the ASD incidence, while aging factor and preoperative pathology affected the ASD time period.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document