Early results of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion in iatrogenic spondylolisthesis patients

Primary Versus Iatrogenic Spondylolisthesis: A Multi-Dimensional Comparison of Outcomes

Background: Spondylolisthesis is an important cause of lumbar and/or leg pain and can occur primarily or following spinal surgery. Our study aimed to compare the outcomes, patient satisfaction, and complications in patients surgically treated for primary versus iatrogenic spondylolisthesis. Methods: We included 90 patients who underwent spinal surgery for primary (group A, n = 46) and iatrogenic (group B, n = 44) spondylolisthesis. Radiographs were performed before and after spinal surgery. Low back pain and leg pain were assessed with the Visual Analog Scale preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 12 months, the Frankel classification was used to assess neurological impairment, and the Oswestry Disability Index was assessed preoperatively at 6 and 12 months. Results: Patients in group A had better surgical outcomes, with shorter surgical time (p = 0.005), less intraoperative bleeding (p = 0.0015), and achieving higher degrees of spondylolisthesis reduction (p = 0.0128) with more reduction distance reached (p = 0.0153). Moreover, patients from group A had significantly higher levels of low back pain preoperatively compared to patients from group B (p = 0.0042). No significant differences were noted in low back pain and leg pain at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Fewer implant failures were seen in group B, while group A had a slightly faster arthrodesis rate. Conclusions: Iatrogenic spondylolisthesis requires additional surgeries with increased risks and socioeconomic costs. However, while surgical challenges differ based on the etiology of spondylolisthesis, the long-term outcomes might not vary significantly. Future research is needed to address the optimization of surgical techniques and rehabilitation strategies in order to improve the outcomes in both cohorts.

Anatomical Ignorance Resulting in Iatrogenic Causes of Human Morbidity

This article discusses how inadequate anatomy education contributes to iatrogenic causes of human morbidity and mortality. Through a review of the relevant literature, high-yield clinical cases were identified in which a lack of sufficient anatomical knowledge contributed to patient morbidity, such as abscess formation and neuropathy as a result of improper intramuscular injections, superior gluteal nerve injuries due to surgical procedures, and misdiagnoses due to physicians' inability to examine and correlate clinical and radiological findings. The importance of a multimodal learning approach in anatomy education for medical students, which includes the utilization of the cadaveric dissection approach to emphasize spatial understanding, is crucial for the development of competent physicians with a deep-rooted foundational knowledge of anatomy and related concepts, such as physiology, pathology, and radiology. It cannot be understated that anatomy education and a lack of knowledge of anatomy and related concepts may influence iatrogenic causes of human morbidity and mortality. Therefore, all efforts should be made to ensure that students develop a strong foundational anatomy knowledge during their preclinical years.

Clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparisons between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion

BACKGROUND

Although the original technique involves inserting two cages bilaterally, there could be situations that only allow for insertion of one cage unilaterally. However, only a few studies have compared the outcomes between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) between unilaterally and bilaterally inserted cages.

METHODS

Among 206 eligible patients who underwent 1- or 2-level PLIF, 78 patients were 1:3 cohort-matched by age, sex, and operation level (group U, 19 patients with unilateral cages; and group B, 57 patients with bilateral cages). Fusion status was evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scans at postoperative 1 year. Clinical outcomes were measured by visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D. Radiological and clinical parameters were compared between the two groups. Risk factors for pseudarthrosis were also analyzed by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The demographic data were not significantly different between the two groups. However, previous laminectomy, asymmetric disc collapse, and fusion at L5-S1 level were more frequently found in group U (P = 0.003, P = 0.014, and P = 0.014, respectively). Furthermore, pseudarthrosis was more frequently observed in group U (36.8%) than in group B (7.0%) (P = 0.004). Back pain VAS was higher in group U at postoperative 1 year (P = 0.033). Lower general activity function of EQ-5D was observed in group U at postoperative 1 year (P = 0.035). Older age (P = 0.028), unilateral cage (P = 0.007), and higher bone mineral density (P = 0.033) were positively correlated with pseudarthrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Unilaterally inserted cage might be a possible risk factor for pseudarthrosis when performing PLIF, which could be related with the difficult working conditions such as scars due to previous laminectomy or asymmetric disc collapse. Furthermore, suboptimal clinical outcomes are expected following PLIF with unilateral cage insertion at postoperative 1 year regardless of similar clinical outcomes at postoperative 2 year. Therefore, caution is advised when inserting cages unilaterally, especially under above-mentioned conditions in terms of its possible relationship with symptomatic pseudarthrosis.

Factors associated with using an interbody fusion device for low-grade lumbar degenerative versus isthmic spondylolisthesis: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Many studies have utilized a combined cohort of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) to evaluate indications and outcomes. Intuitively, these are very different populations, and rates, indications, and outcomes may differ. The goal of this study was to compare specific patient characteristics associated with the utilization of a posterior lumbar interbody device between cohorts of patients with DS and IS, as well as to compare rates of interbody device use and patient-rated outcomes at 1 year after surgical treatment.

METHODS

The authors included patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion or instrumented posterolateral fusion for grade I or II DS or IS and had been enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network registry from 2009 to 2016. The outcome measures were score on the Oswestry Disability Index, scores for back pain and leg pain on the numeric rating scale, and mental component summary (MCS) score and physical component summary score on the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Descriptive statistics were used to compare spondylolisthesis groups, logistic regression was used to compare interbody device use, and the chi-square test was used to compare the proportions of patients who achieved a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 119 patients had IS and 339 had DS. Patients with DS were more commonly women, older, less likely to smoke, and more likely to have neurogenic claudication and comorbidities, whereas patients with IS more commonly had radicular pain, neurological deficits, and worse back pain. Spondylolisthesis was more common at the L4-5 level in patients with DS and at the L5-S1 level in patients with IS. Similar proportions of patients had an interbody device (78.6% of patients with DS vs 82.4% of patients with IS, p = 0.429). Among patients with IS, factors associated with interbody device utilization were BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and increased baseline leg pain intensity. Factors associated with interbody device utilization in patients with DS were younger age, increased number of total comorbidities, and lower baseline MCS score. For each outcome measure, similar proportions of patients in the surgical treatment and spondylolisthesis groups achieved the MCID at 1 year after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the demographic and patient characteristics associated with interbody device utilization differed between cohorts, similar proportions of patients attained clinically meaningful improvement at 1 year after surgery.

Anterior lumbar fusion techniques: ALIF, OLIF, DLIF, LLIF, IXLIF

An anterior approach to the lumbar spine is increasingly used in performing fusion. Depending on the level to be treated, several approaches have been developed to deal with the anatomic obstacles encountered: pure anterior, oblique anterior or lateral, and trans- or pre-psoas. Conventional techniques incur risk of muscle lesion and severe bleeding, and have been replaced by minimally invasive approaches, often with video assistance after rapid closure of laparoscopic approaches with gas insufflation. There has, in parallel, been great progress in anterior spinal instrumentation systems. Non-existent when these techniques were first developed, they have become increasingly sophisticated, and now employ a variety of stand-alone or not cages and anterior screwed plate that can be associated together or to posterior fixation. Each approach and type of fixation has its specific technical requirements that need to be fully mastered so as to minimize risk, especially regarding vessels, and to enable the patient to enjoy the benefit of their very low morbidity. We shall therefore detail here each step of the pure anterior approach, which is most often used for L5S1, the oblique and lateral approaches, mainly used for L2L5, and also the preparation of the lumbar spine for anterior interbody fusion, with the respective instrumentations. We shall then consider the pros, cons and risks, and also spinal or general contraindications that may sometimes preclude this option. From this, we shall derive the specific optimal and wrong indications for anterior lumbar surgery, to help decision-making when fusion is indicated.

Resting Pain Level as a Preoperative Predictor of Success With Indirect Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pilot Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of a single institution.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if resting leg pain level is a predictor of success for indirect decompression in the setting of lumbar spinal stenosis, with lower levels of rest pain correlating with greater likelihood of successful indirect decompression.

METHODS

Reviewed anterior or lateral lumbar interbody fusions from T12 to L5-S1 patients with a posterior-based pedicle screw-rod construct. Patients were separated into 2 groups based on a preoperative response to Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Question 7 regarding level of pain at rest in the supine position. Responses of 0 to 2 (minimal rest pain) were group 1 (n = 54) and responses of 3 to 5 (significant rest pain) were group 2 (n = 16).

RESULTS

Preoperative difference was detected between groups 1 and 2, in ODI (38 vs 63, P < .001) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) back (6.8 vs 7.9, P = .023). Three-month NRS leg and back scores were significantly lower in group 1 (leg, 1.9 vs 4.8, P < .001; back, 3.5 vs 6.4, P = .001). A significant difference was further noted in the percentage decrease in NRS leg and back scores from pre- to 3 months postoperatively between groups 1 and 2 (leg, 68.4% vs 22.7%, P < .001; back, 40.0% vs 7.4%, P = .012). Group 1 reached minimal clinically important difference for leg pain more often than group 2 (83.3% vs 43.8%, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative assessment of rest pain level in the supine position has a significant association with reduction in NRS leg and back scores in patients undergoing indirect decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. This tool may successfully indicate which patients will be candidates for indirect decompression with interbody fusion from an anterior or lateral approach.

Acquired spondylolysis and spinopelvic sagittal alignment

Acquired spondylolysis represents an uncommon complication of spine surgery, of an unknown incidence and etiology. We studied patients presenting this rare entity, with the purpose to investigate the incidence, imaging findings, patients' clinical characteristics, as well as to provide an interpretation of the mechanisms that may lead to this phenomenon. The presented working hypothesis, regarding etiology, suggests that there is a relation between variations in spinopelvic sagittal alignment and acquired spondylolysis. Between January 2010 and January 2015, six patients presented spondylolysis after short-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, at a mean time of 43 months after surgery. The preoperative intactness and postoperative defect of pars interarticularis were documented with computed tomography scans in all patients. Standard radiographical spinopelvic parameters were measured before and after surgery. The optimum values of lumbar lordosis (LL) and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis modifier (PI-LL mismatch) were calculated as well. The incidence of acquired spondylolysis was 0.95% among patients with short-segment lumbar fusion. Patients presented high-grade PI with a vertically orientated sacral endplate, while LL was found 9° greater and PI-LL mismatch 9° lower than the respective optimum values, indicating a non-harmonized alignment. In conclusion, acquired spondylolysis, though rare, may occur in patients with high-grade PI and sacral slope, and suboptimal spinopelvic sagittal alignment after lumbar spine surgery, thereby highlighting the importance of detailed preoperative planning in spine surgery, along with the study of sagittal balance.

Evaluating Outcomes of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is an effective surgical approach for selected spinal pathologies. It avoids the morbidity and complications associated with instrumented ALIF, such as plate fixation and the traditionally used posterior approach. Despite improved disc space visualization and clearance, the associated posterior instability and increased risk of nonfusion present major challenges to this approach. The integral cage design aims to address these challenges by providing the necessary stabilization through intracorporeal screws. However, there is limited and controversial data available for stand-alone ALIF and integral cage fixation. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to evaluate recent findings on outcomes of stand-alone ALIF devices to explore areas of controversy and identify directions for future research.

METHODS

Two reviewers conducted independent, systematic literature searches for appropriate studies in 5 electronic databases as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were filtered by the use of specified selection criteria, particularly exclusion of studies with supplementary fixation to ALIF and studies published before the year 2000. A total of 17 studies met the criteria, and their data were comprehensively extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

The current literature is supportive of stand-alone ALIF due to acceptable clinical outcomes, promising fusion rates and disc height restoration. However, data and outcomes remain preliminary, and there are numerous areas of controversy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence for the efficacy and safety of stand-alone ALIF. However, the extent of improvement based on specific indications for surgery remains unclear. Further investigation utilizing more methodologically rigorous studies of long-term outcomes is necessary to address these issues.

L5/S1 Fusion Rates in Degenerative Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review Comparing ALIF, TLIF, and Axial Interbody Arthrodesis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the fusion rate of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and axial arthrodesis at the lumbosacral junction in adult patients undergoing surgery for 1- and 2-level degenerative spine conditions.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An L5/S1 interbody fusion is a commonly performed procedure for pathology such as spondylolisthesis with stenosis; however, it is unclear if 1 technique leads to superior fusion rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE was conducted for literature published between January 1, 1992 and August 17, 2014. All peer-reviewed articles related to the fusion rate of L5/S1 for an ALIF, TLIF, or axial interbody fusion were included.

RESULTS

In total, 42 articles and 1507 patients were included in this systematic review. A difference in overall fusion rates was identified, with a rate of 99.2% (range, 96.4%-99.8%) for a TLIF, 97.2% (range, 91.0%-99.2%) for an ALIF, and 90.5% (range, 79.0%-97.0%) for an axial interbody fusion (P=0.005). In a paired analysis directly comparing fusion techniques, only the difference between a TLIF and an axial interbody fusion was significant. However, when only cases in which bilateral pedicle screws supported the interbody fusion, no statistical difference (P>0.05) between the 3 techniques was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature available to guide the treatment of L5/S1 pathology is poor, but the available data suggest that a high fusion rate can be expected with the use of an ALIF, TLIF, or axial interbody fusion. Any technique-dependent benefit in fusion rate can be eliminated with common surgical modifications such as the use of bilateral pedicle screws.

Atypical, unusual, and misleading imaging presentations of spondylolysis

Although lumbar spondylolysis is a widely known and easily recognizable condition in its typical presentation, there are some less well-known forms that may occasionally be challenging and/or demand special attention on imaging. Examples include: acute and/or incomplete lesions; unilateral defects; lesions at unusual levels (cervical, upper lumbar, and multi-level spondylolyses); iatrogenic lesions; non-isthmic spondylolysis; and spondylolysis related to underlying diseases. In addition to their atypical, uncommon or confusing imaging presentations, these forms of spondylolysis are far rarer than the classic type and have been described, to a great extent, in the surgical literature, thus reducing the awareness of radiologists about them and raising the potential for misdiagnosis and inadequate treatment. In this review the authors address these special manifestations of spondylolysis, stressing the more important features to be considered in the differential diagnosis and the impact of a precise diagnosis of spondylolysis on the patient's care.