Variation in surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis in Canada: surgeon assessment of stability and impact on treatment

Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to May 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing decompression with instrumented fusion to decompression alone in patients with DS. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We provide the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment of the certainty of evidence (COE).

RESULTS

We identified 4514 records and included four trials with 523 participants. At a 2-year follow-up, adding fusion to decompression likely results in trivial difference in the Oswestry Disability Index (range 0-100, with higher values indicating greater impairment) with mean difference (MD) 0.86 (95% CI -4.53 to 6.26; moderate COE). Similar results were observed for back and leg pain measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher values indicating more severe pain. There was a slightly increased improvement in back pain (2-year follow-up) in the group without fusion shown by MD -5·92 points (95% CI -11.00 to -0.84; moderate COE). There was a trivial difference in leg pain between the groups, slightly favouring the one without fusion, with MD -1.25 points (95% CI -6.71 to 4.21; moderate COE). Our findings at 2-year follow-up suggest that omitting fusion may increase the reoperation rate slightly (OR 1.23; 0.70 to 2.17; low COE).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests no benefits of adding instrumented fusion to decompression for treating DS. Isolated decompression seems sufficient for most patients. Further RCTs assessing spondylolisthesis stability are needed to determine which patients would benefit from fusion.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022308267.

Full-endoscopic foraminotomy in low-grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis: a patient-specific tailored approach

PURPOSE

To describe the surgical technique and methodology to successfully plan and execute an endoscopic foraminotomy in patients with isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis, according to each patient's unique characteristics.

METHODS

Thirty patients with degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis (SL) with radicular symptoms were included from March 2019 to September 2022. Treating physician registered patients' baseline and imaging characteristics, as well as preoperative back pain VAS, leg pain VAS and ODI. Subsequently, authors treated the included patients with an endoscopic foraminotomy according to a "patient-specific" tailored approach.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients (63.33%) had isthmic SL and 11 patients (36.67%) had degenerative SL. 75.86% of the cases had a Meyerding Grade 1 listhesis. One of the transforaminal foraminotomies with lateral recess decompression in degenerative SL had to be aborted because of intense osseous bleeding. Of the remaining 29 patients, one patient experienced recurrence of the sciatica pain that required subsequent reintervention and fusion. No other intraoperative or post-operative complications were observed. None of the patients developed post-operative dysesthesia. In 86.67% of the patients, the foraminotomy was implemented using a transforaminal approach. In the remaining 13.33% of the cases, an interlaminar contralateral approach was used. Lateral recess decompression was performed in half of the cases. Mean follow-up time was 12.69 months, reaching a maximum of 40 months in some patients. Outcome variables such as VAS for leg and back pain, as well as ODI, showed statistically significant reduction since the 3-month follow-up visit.

CONCLUSION

In the presented case series, endoscopic foraminotomy achieved satisfactory outcomes without sacrificing segmental stability. The proposed patient-specific "tailored" approach allowed to successfully design and execute the surgical strategy to perform an endoscopic foraminotomy through transforaminal or interlaminar contralateral approaches.

Evaluating Instability in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Objective Variables Versus Surgeon Impressions

The subjective degenerative spondylolisthesis instability classification (S-DSIC) system attempts to define preoperative instability associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The system guides surgical decision-making based on numerous indicators of instability that surgeons subjectively assess and incorporate. A more objective classification is warranted in order to decrease variation among surgeons. In this study, our objectives included (1) proposing an objective version of the DSIC system (O-DSIC) based on the best available clinical and biomechanical data and (2) comparing subjective surgeon perceptions (S-DSIC) with an objective measure (O-DSIC) of instability related to DLS.

METHODS

In this multicenter cohort study, we prospectively enrolled 408 consecutive adult patients who received surgery for symptomatic DLS. Surgeons prospectively categorized preoperative instability using the existing S-DSIC system. Subsequently, an O-DSIC system was created. Variables selected for inclusion were assigned point values based on previously determined evidence quality. DSIC types were derived by point summation: 0 to 2 points was considered stable, Type I); 3 points, potentially unstable, Type II; and 4 to 5 points, unstable, Type III. Surgeons' subjective perceptions of instability (S-DSIC) were retrospectively compared with O-DSIC types.

RESULTS

The O-DSIC system includes 5 variables: presence of facet effusion, disc height preservation (≥6.5 mm), translation (≥4 mm), a kyphotic or neutral disc angle in flexion, and low back pain (≥5 of 10 intensity). Type I (n = 176, 57.0%) and Type II (n = 164, 53.0%) were the most common DSIC types according to the O-DSIC and S-DSIC systems, respectively. Surgeons categorized higher degrees of instability with the S-DSIC than the O-DSIC system in 130 patients (42%) (p < 0.001). The assignment of DSIC types was not influenced by demographic variables with either system.

CONCLUSIONS

The O-DSIC system facilitates objective assessment of preoperative instability related to DLS. Surgeons assigned higher degrees of instability with the S-DSIC than the O-DSIC system in 42% of cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Current treatment and decision-making factors leading to fusion vs decompression for one-level degenerative spondylolisthesis: survey results from members of the Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is one of the most common pathologies spine surgeons treat. While a number of potential factors have been identified, there is no current consensus on which variables most impact the decision to fuse vs. decompress alone in this population.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to describe current DS treatment practices and identify both the radiographic and clinical factors leading to the decision to fuse segments for one level DS.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Descriptive cross-sectional survey.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Surveys were administered to members of Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgeon demographics and treatment practices were reported. Radiographic and clinical parameters were ranked by each surgeon with regards to their importance.

METHODS

The primary analysis was limited to completed surveys. Baseline characteristics were summarized. Clinical and radiographic parameters were ranked and compared. Ranking of each clinical and radiographic parameters was reported using best and worst rank, mean rank position, and percentiles. The most important, top 3 most important, and top 5 most important parameters were ordered given each parameter's ranking frequency.

RESULTS

381 surveys were returned completed. With regards to fusion vs. decompression, 19.9% fuse all cases, 39.1% fuse > 75%, 17.8% fuse 50%-75%, and 23.2% fuse <25%. The most common decompressive technique was a partial laminotomy (51.4%), followed by full laminectomy (28.9%). 82.2% of respondents instrument all fusion cases. Instability (93.2%), spondylolisthesis grade (59.8%), and laterolisthesis (37.3%) were the most common radiographic factors impacting the decision to fuse. With regards to the clinical factors leading to fusion, mechanical low back pain (83.2%), activity level (58.3%), and neurogenic claudication (42.8%) were the top 3 clinical parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little consensus on the treatment of DS, with society members showing substantial variation in treatment patterns with the majority utilizing fusion for treatment. The most common radiographic parameters impacting treatment are instability, spondylolisthesis grade, and laterolisthesis while mechanical low back pain, activity level, and neurogenic claudication are the most common clinical parameters.

Efficacy of Reverse and Modified Bohlman Technique for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

High grade lumbar spondylolisthesis (HGLS) remains a challenging surgical entity, and there is no current consensus regarding optimal surgical approach. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature for studies utilizing the Reverse or Modified Bohlman technique for the treatment of HGLS to assess its safety and efficacy.

METHODS

The authors perform a literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE electronic databases from their inception according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies were included. The studies comprised a total of 43 patients, with mean age of 41.4 ± 19.8 (9-83) years. The mean follow-up was 38.2 ± 41.7 (3-137) months. Most patients (81.4%) were classified as having grade III or higher spondylolisthesis. The most common presenting symptom was back pain (93%), followed by radiculopathy in roughly half of patients (41.9%). Majority of patients (93%) experienced complete resolution of symptoms as well as successful fusion (90.7%) on follow-up. Complications included cage/graft failure (7%), nerve injury (7%), wound infection (7%), pseudoarthrosis (2.3%), epidural hematoma (2.3%), and deep vein thrombosis (2.3%). Revision surgery was required in 4 (9.3%) patients. Slip percentage (60.2% versus 43.2%, p<0.0001) and slip angle (17.1° versus 6.4°, p<0.001) both decreased significantly following surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate Reverse and Modified Bohlman techniques appear to be effective in both improving slip angle/percentage and relieving symptoms with low risk of complications. These findings are limited by the small sample size of patients. The authors recommend larger series before formal recommendations can be made.