Macki Mohamed, Bydon Mohamad, Weingart Robby, Sciubba Daniel, Wolinsky Jean-Paul, Gokaslan Ziya L, Bydon Ali, Witham Timothy
Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America; Johns Hopkins Spinal Biomechanics and Surgical Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Johns Hopkins Spinal Biomechanics and Surgical Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015 Nov;138:117-23. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.08.014. Epub 2015 Aug 20.
Posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (PLIF/TLIF) may improve the outcomes in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. This study aims to compare outcomes after posterolateral fusion (PLF) only versus PLF with interbody fusion (PLF+PLIF/TLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis.
We retrospectively reviewed103 patients who underwent first-time instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Anterior techniques and multilevel interbody fusions were excluded. All patients were followed for at least 2 years postoperatively. Clinical outcomes including back pain, radiculopathy, weakness, sensory deficits, and loss of bowel/bladder function were ascertained from clinic notes. Radiographic measures were calculated with Tillard percentage of spondylolisthesis. Reoperation for progression of degenerative disease, a primary endpoint, was indicated for all patients with (1) persistent or new-onset neurological symptoms; and (2) radiographic imaging that correlated with clinical presentation.
Of the 103 patients, 56.31% were managed with PLF and 43.69% with PLF+PLIF/TLIF. On radiographic studies, spondylolisthesis improved by a mean of 13.06% after PLF+PLIF/TLIF versus 5.67% after PLF (p<0.001). In comparison to PLF+PLIF/TLIF, patients undergoing PLF experienced higher rates of postoperative improvement in back pain, sensory deficits, motor weakness, radiculopathy, and bowel/bladder difficulty; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. The PLF cohort had a significantly higher incidence of reoperation (p=0.011) and pseudoarthrosis/instrumentation failure (p=0.043). In the logistical analyses, non-interbody fusion was the strongest predictor of reoperation for progression of degenerative disease.
Compared to PLF only, PLF+PLIF/TLIF were statistically significantly associated with a greater correction of spondylolisthesis. Patients with interbody fusions were less likely to undergo reoperation for degenerative disease progression compared to non-interbody fusions. However, greater listhesis correction and decreased reoperation in the PLF+PLIF/TLIF cohort should be weighed with favorable clinical outcomes in the PLF cohort.
后路或经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF/TLIF)可能会改善腰椎滑脱患者的治疗效果。本研究旨在比较单纯后外侧融合术(PLF)与后外侧融合联合椎间融合术(PLF+PLIF/TLIF)治疗腰椎滑脱患者的疗效。
我们回顾性分析了103例因退行性或峡部裂性腰椎滑脱首次接受器械辅助腰椎融合术的患者。排除前路手术和多节段椎间融合术。所有患者术后至少随访2年。从临床记录中确定包括背痛、神经根病、无力、感觉障碍以及大小便功能丧失等临床结局。采用Tillard腰椎滑脱百分比计算影像学指标。对于所有出现以下情况的患者,将退行性疾病进展的再次手术作为主要终点指标:(1)持续或新发的神经症状;(2)与临床表现相关的影像学检查结果。
103例患者中,56.31%接受了PLF治疗,43.69%接受了PLF+PLIF/TLIF治疗。影像学研究显示,PLF+PLIF/TLIF术后腰椎滑脱平均改善13.06%,而PLF术后为5.67%(p<0.001)。与PLF+PLIF/TLIF相比,接受PLF治疗的患者术后背痛、感觉障碍、运动无力、神经根病及大小便困难的改善率更高;然而,这些差异未达到统计学意义。PLF组再次手术发生率(p=0.011)和假关节/内固定失败发生率(p=0.043)显著更高。在逻辑分析中,非椎间融合术是退行性疾病进展再次手术的最强预测因素。
与单纯PLF相比,PLF+PLIF/TLIF在统计学上与更大程度的腰椎滑脱矫正显著相关。与非椎间融合术相比,接受椎间融合术的患者因退行性疾病进展而接受再次手术的可能性较小。然而,PLF+PLIF/TLIF组更大程度的滑脱矫正和更低的再次手术率应与PLF组良好的临床结局相权衡。