Case Report: Lumbar spondylolisthesis with unilateral pedicle cleft and contralateral spondylolysis: a report of two cases and literature review.

Background: The causes of pedicle cleft include congenital dysplasia and stress fractures, both of which are rare conditions. Secondary lumbar spondylolisthesis with combined unilateral pedicle cleft and contralateral spondylolysis is extremely rare and can be easily misdiagnosed. We report two cases with these conditions from different causes and discuss the diagnostic and therapeutic features in the context of the literature review. Case description: Case 1 was a 58-year-old female with a stress fracture change at the left L5 pedicle. Case 2 was a 47-year-old female with a pedicle cleft due to hypoplasia of the left L5 pedicle. Both patients had a combined contralateral spondylolysis and Meyerding grade one lumbar spondylolisthesis, while neither had a clear history of lumbar trauma. After initial conservative treatments failed, both patients underwent a single-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Both patients were followed up for more than 1 year postoperatively with clinical symptom relief and bony fusion at the pedicle cleft suggested by a CT scan. Conclusion: Lumbar spondylolisthesis with unilateral pedicle cleft and contralateral spondylolysis is rarely reported and can be clinically misdiagnosed as simple spondylolisthesis with bilateral spondylolysis. There is no widely accepted surgical option for patients for whom conservative treatment has failed. Our experience suggests that good clinical results may be achieved by single-segment posterior interbody fusion and bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Precise screw placement into the deficient pedicle and sufficient exiting nerve decompression are prerequisites for the success of this surgical option.

Biomechanical Comparison of Corticopedicular Spine Fixation versus Pedicle Screw Fixation in a Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Finite Element Analysis Model.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the stability of a corticopedicular posterior fixation (CPPF) device to traditional pedicle screws for decompression and fusion in adult degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Finite element analysis (FEA) was used in a validated model of grade 1 L4-L5 spondylolisthesis to compare segmental stability following laminectomy alone, laminectomy with pedicle screw fixation, or laminectomy with CPPF device fixation. A 500N follower load was applied to the model and different functional movements were simulated by applying a 7.5Nm force in different directions. Outcomes included degrees of motion, tensile forces experienced in the CPPF device, and stresses in surrounding cortical bone. RESULTS: At maximum loading, laminectomy alone demonstrated an 1° increase in flexion range of motion from 6.35° to 7.39°. Laminectomy with pedicle screw fixation and CPPF device fixation both reduced spinal segmental motion to ≤1° at maximum loading in all ranges of motion, including flexion (0.94° and 1.09°), extension (-0.85°and -1.08°), lateral bending (-0.56° and -0.96°), and torsion (0.63°and 0.91°), respectively. There was no significant difference in segmental stability between pedicle screw fixation and CPPF device fixation during maximum loading with a difference of ≤0.4° in any range of motion. Tensile forces in the CPPF device remained ≤51% the ultimate load to failure (487N) and stress in surrounding cortical bone remained ≤84% the ultimate stress of cortical bone (125.4 MPa) during maximum loading. CONCLUSION: CPFF fixation demonstrated similar segmental stability to traditional pedicle screw fixation while tensile forces and stress in surrounding cortical bone remained below the load to failure.

One- and 2-year outcomes of lumbar facet arthroplasty versus spinal fusion in young (<65 years) and old (≥65 years) patients for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis.

Background: Facet arthroplasty, an alternative to lumbar fusion, offers stabilization and preserves range of motion. This subanalysis of the TOPS IDE trial (FDA #G160168) compared facet arthroplasty, using the TOPS device, with a standard single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients stratified by age (<65 and ≥65 years) with symptomatic grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis with moderate to severe spinal stenosis at L2-5. Methods: Patient-reported outcomes (PROMS), including Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog pain scales (VAS), and Zurich claudication questionnaires (ZCQ), were assessed at baseline and multiple postoperative timepoints. Radiographic evaluation of flexion/extension range of motion (ROM) occurred at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Data were analyzed following an intention-to-treat model. Significance was defined as p<.05. Results: About 299 patients were included (TOPS=206, TLIF=93). The groups were similar at baseline. At 2 years, the TOPS group had a greater proportion of patients report ≥15-point improvement for ODI (93.8% versus 77.1%, p=.011) and ≥20-point improvement for VAS back (84.4% versus 61.8%, p=.014). At 1 year, TOPS group had a greater proportion of patients report clinically significant improvements in all ZCQ categories (91.6% versus 78.5%, p=.012). In patients <65 years, the TOPS group had improved PROMS compared to TLIF at 2 years; however, these differences were less pronounced in patients ≥65 years old. The TOPS groups preserved more ROM at 12 (2.8° 95%CI [1.87; 3.74], p<.0001) and 24 (2.99° 95%CI [1.82; 4.15], p<.0001) months compared to TLIF. ROM was similarly preserved in patients aged <65 and ≥65. The rate of adverse events did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Conclusions: Facet arthroplasty preserves more ROM in all ages and leads to improved PROMS compared to TLIF, particularly in younger patients.

Comparing opioid utilization and costs for surgical management of single-level spondylolisthesis: A national claims database analysis.

Introduction: The rise in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) cases has led to a significant increase in fusion surgeries, which incur substantial hospitalization costs and often necessitate chronic opioid use for pain management. Recent evidence suggests that single-level low-grade DLS outcomes are comparable whether a fusion procedure or decompression alone is performed, sparking debate over the cost-effectiveness of these procedures, particularly with the advent of minimally invasive techniques reducing the morbidity of fusion. This study aims to compare chronic opioid utilization and associated costs between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Material and methods: Using data from the PearlDiver database, a retrospective database analysis was conducted. We analyzed records of Medicare and Medicaid patients undergoing lumbar fusion or decompression from 2010 to 2022. Patient cohorts were divided into decompression alone (DA) and decompression with instrumented fusion (DIF). Chronic opioid use, pain clinic visits, and total costs were compared between the two groups at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years post-surgery. Theory: Does DIF offer a more cost-effective approach to managing DLS in terms of chronic opioid use in single-level DLS patients. Results: The study revealed comparable chronic opioid use and pain clinic visits between DA and DIF groups at 90 days and 1 year. However, total costs associated with opioid prescriptions as well as surgical aftercare were significantly higher in the DIF group at 90 days (p < 0.05), 1 year (p < 0.05), and 2 years (p < 0.05) post-surgery compared to the DA group. Conclusions: This study highlights the higher costs associated with DIF up to 2 years post-surgery despite comparable symptom improvement when compared to DA and DIF at the 1-year interval. DA emerges as a more financially favorable option, challenging the notion of fusion's cost-offsetting benefits. While further investigation is needed to understand underlying cost drivers and optimize outcomes, our findings emphasize the necessity of integrating clinical and economic factors in the management of single-level DLS.

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of postoperative outcomes.

PURPOSE: To determine of the impact of ALIF with minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) on perioperative outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and the rates of fusion, subsidence, and adjacent segment stenosis. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent one-level ALIF with UPSF or BPSF at an academic institution between 2015 and 2022 were retrospectively identified. Postoperative outcomes including length of hospital stay (LOS), wound complications, readmissions, and revisions were determined. The rates of fusion, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and subsidence were assessed on one-year postoperative CT. Lumbar alignment including lumbar lordosis, L4-S1 lordosis, regional lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and sacral slope were assessed on standing x-rays at preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final postoperative follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared outcomes across posterior fixation groups. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included (27 UPSF, 33 BPSF). Patients with UPSF were significantly younger (p = 0.011). Operative time was significantly greater in the BPSF group in univariate (p < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (ß=104.1, p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss, LOS, lordosis, pelvic parameters, fusion rate, subsidence, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and revision rate did not differ significantly between fixation groups. Though sacral slope (p = 0.037) was significantly greater in the BPSF group, fixation type was not a significant predictor on regression. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF with UPSF relative to BPSF predicted decreased operative time but was not a significant predictor of postoperative outcomes. ALIF with UPSF can be considered to increase operative efficiency without compromising construct stability.

Evaluating the efficacy and suggesting technical optimizations for endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion across different lumbar spondylolisthesis types.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion technique across different types of lumbar spondylolisthesis, specifically Grade I and Grade II, and suggest technical optimizations based on therapeutic outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction for both grades. Methods: We analyzed data from 57 L4 to 5 spondylolisthesis patients, all categorized as either Grade I or Grade II, comprising 31 males and 26 females. Of these, 36 were diagnosed with Grade I and 21 with Grade II. All subjects underwent the endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion procedure. Primary evaluation metrics included pre and post-operative Vasual Analogue Scale（VAS） pain scores, Osewewtry Disability Index（ODI） functional scores, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, degree of spondylolisthesis correction, complications, and patient satisfaction levels. Results: At a minimum of 6 months post-operation, the VAS score for the Grade I cohort reduced from an initial 7.30 ± 0.69 to 2.97 ± 0.47, while the Grade II cohort saw a decrease from 7.53 ± 0.56 to 3.37 ± 0.62 (P = 0.0194). The ODI score in the Grade I group declined from 66.88 ± 5.15 % pre-operation to 29.88 ± 6.36 % post-operation, and in the Grade II group, it decreased from 69.33 ± 5.27 % to 34.66 ± 6.01 % (P = 0.0092). The average surgical duration for the Grade I group stood at 155.72 ± 17.75 min, compared to 180.38 ± 14.72 min for the Grade II group (P < 0.001). The mean intraoperative blood loss for the Grade I group was 144.58 ± 28.61 ml, whereas the Grade II group registered 188.23 ± 9.41 ml (P < 0.001). Post-surgery, 83 % of the Grade I patients achieved a correction degree exceeding 80 %, and 61 % of the Grade II patients surpassed 50 % (P = 0.0055). Complication rates were recorded at 8 % for Grade I and 16 % for Grade II. Patient satisfaction reached 94 % in the Grade I cohort and 90 % in the Grade II cohort. Conclusion: Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion showcases promising therapeutic outcomes for both Grade I and Grade II lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, surgeries for Grade II spondylolisthesis tend to be lengthier, more challenging, involve greater blood loss, and have a heightened complication risk. Tailored technical adjustments and enhancements are essential for addressing the distinct spondylolisthesis types.

Transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic single-level spondylolisthesis (LIFT): a multicentre controlled, patient blinded, randomised non-inferiority trial.

Background: The effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients with single-level spondylolisthesis has not been substantiated. To address the evidence gap, a well-powered randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the effectiveness of TLIF with PLIF, entitled the Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT), was conducted. Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial among five Dutch hospitals, 161 patients were randomly allocated to either TLIF or PLIF (1:1), stratified according to study site. Patients and statisticians were blinded for group assignment. All patients were over 18 years old with symptomatic single-level degenerative, isthmic or iatrogenic lumbar spondylolisthesis, and eligible for lumbar interbody fusion surgery through a posterior approach. The primary outcome was change in disability measured with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from preoperative to one year postoperative. The non-inferiority limit was set to 7.0 points based on the MCID of ODI. Secondary outcomes were change in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) assessed with EuroQol 5 Dimensions, 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), as well as back and leg pain (Numerical rating scale, NRS), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; HADS), perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and complications. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry, number 5722 (registration date March 30, 2016), Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT): A randomized controlled multicenter trial for surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Findings: Patients were included between August 2017 and November 2020. The total study population was 161 patients. Total loss-to-follow-up after one year was 16 patients. Per-protocol analysis included 66 patients in each group. In the TLIF group (mean age 61.6, 36 females), ODI improved from 46.7 to 20.7, whereas in the PLIF group (mean age 61.9, 41 females), it improved from 46.0 to 24.9. This difference (-4.9, 90% CI -12.2 to +2.4) did not reach the non-inferiority limit of 7.0 points in ODI. A significant difference in the secondary outcome measurement, QALY (SF-36), was observed in favor of TLIF (P < 0.05). However, this was not clinically relevant. No difference was found for all other secondary outcome measurements; PROMs (EQ-5D, NRS leg/back, HADS), perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and perioperative and postoperative complications. Interpretation: For patients with single-level spondylolisthesis, TLIF is non-inferior to PLIF in terms of clinical effectiveness. Disability (measured with ODI) did not differ over time between groups. Funding: No funding was received for this trial.

Detection and Localization of Spine Disorders from Plain Radiography.

Spine disorders can cause severe functional limitations, including back pain, decreased pulmonary function, and increased mortality risk. Plain radiography is the first-line imaging modality to diagnose suspected spine disorders. Nevertheless, radiographical appearance is not always sufficient due to highly variable patient and imaging parameters, which can lead to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Employing an accurate automated detection model can alleviate the workload of clinical experts, thereby reducing human errors, facilitating earlier detection, and improving diagnostic accuracy. To this end, deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools have significantly outperformed the accuracy of traditional CAD software. Motivated by these observations, we proposed a deep learning-based approach for end-to-end detection and localization of spine disorders from plain radiographs. In doing so, we took the first steps in employing state-of-the-art transformer networks to differentiate images of multiple spine disorders from healthy counterparts and localize the identified disorders, focusing on vertebral compression fractures (VCF) and spondylolisthesis due to their high prevalence and potential severity. The VCF dataset comprised 337 images, with VCFs collected from 138 subjects and 624 normal images collected from 337 subjects. The spondylolisthesis dataset comprised 413 images, with spondylolisthesis collected from 336 subjects and 782 normal images collected from 413 subjects. Transformer-based models exhibited 0.97 Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) in VCF detection and 0.95 AUC in spondylolisthesis detection. Further, transformers demonstrated significant performance improvements against existing end-to-end approaches by 4-14% AUC (p-values < 10-13) for VCF detection and by 14-20% AUC (p-values < 10-9) for spondylolisthesis detection.

Prevalent morphometric vertebral fractures as a risk factor for subsequent clinical vertebral fractures after shortfusion surgery in older Japanese women with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using the Kaplan-Meier method with propensity-score matching. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the presence of prevalent morphometric vertebral fractures (VFs) poses a risk for subsequent clinical VFs after short-fusion surgery in women aged ≥60 years with degenerative spondylolisthesis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: VFs are common osteoporotic fractures and are associated with a low quality of life. Subsequent VFs are a complication of instrumented fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar disorders. Thus, risk factors for subsequent VFs after fusion surgery must be analyzed. Population-based studies have suggested that prevalent morphometric VFs led to a higher incidence of subsequent VFs in postmenopausal women; however, no studies have investigated whether prevalent morphometric VFs are a risk factor for subsequent VFs after fusion surgery in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. METHODS: The study enrolled a total of 237 older female patients: 50 and 187 patients had prevalent morphometric VFs (VF [+] group) and nonprevalent morphometric VFs (VF [-] group), respectively. The time to subsequent clinical VFs after fusion surgery was compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Moreover, 40 and 80 patients in the VF (+) and VF (-) groups, respectively, were analyzed and matched by propensity scores for age, follow-up duration, surgical procedure, number of fused segments, body mass index, and number of patients treated for osteoporosis. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that the VF (+) group had a higher incidence of subsequent clinical VFs than the VF (-) group, and Cox regression analysis showed that the presence of prevalent morphometric VFs was an independent risk factor for subsequent clinical VFs before matching. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated comparable results after matching. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of prevalent morphometric VFs may be a risk factor for subsequent clinical VFs in older women with degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent short-fusion surgery.

Association between ligamentous stenosis at spondylolisthetic segments before fusion surgery and symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis at follow-up in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case-control propensity score-matching study. PURPOSE: This study aimed to longitudinally evaluate whether preoperative ligamentous stenosis at the spondylolisthetic segments could affect the incidence of symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis following one-segment fusion surgery. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Several risk factors for symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis following fusion surgery have been assessed. Patients with lumbar canal stenosis mainly due to ligamentum flavum (LF) hypertrophy (ligamentous stenosis) also have LF hypertrophy in other segments. METHODS: In total, 76 patients participated in this case-control study (neurologically symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis, n=33; neurologically asymptomatic cases at follow-up, n=43). Their risk factors during surgery and magnetic resonance (MR) images before the surgery and at follow-up were evaluated. Data from the two groups (n=25 each) were matched using propensity scores for age, sex, time to MR imaging at follow-up, surgical procedure, and LF hypertrophy in adjacent segments before the surgery and analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with the asymptomatic group, the symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis group had a significantly larger LF area/spinal canal area in the spondylolisthetic segments before the surgery. During the follow-up periods (in months), they had a larger LF area/ spinal canal area in the adjacent segments: the two values were significantly correlated. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for determining symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis were high compared with on the cutoff value for the LF area/spinal canal area at the spondylolisthetic segments before the surgery. These results were the same after matching. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis is mainly caused by LF hypertrophy. Ligamentous stenosis at the spondylolisthetic segments before fusion surgery might be strongly associated with symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis at follow-up.

Anatomical Reduction of Spondylolisthesis Through Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation: An Intraoperative Technical Note.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of lumbar spondylolisthesis requires neural decompression, stabilization, and alignment restoration. Minimally invasive spine approaches offer a wide variety of advantages for spondylolisthesis management. This intraoperative note describes the treatment of L4-L5 lumbar spondylolisthesis with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PSF). METHODS: The surgical technique for treating L4-L5 lumbar spondylolisthesis using a minimally invasive approach with LLIF and percutaneous PSF is described. This operative technique is illustrated with figures, and an intraoperative case example of its application is described. RESULTS: LLIF with percutaneous PSF can be a safe, effective, and reliable option for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis when applied with appropriate surgical technique in a selected patient population. This technique is a valuable addition to the range of available spine surgical options. CONCLUSIONS: LLIF with percutaneous PSF can be an effective technique for treating lumbar L4-L5 spondylolisthesis.

Effects of circulating inflammatory proteins on spinal degenerative diseases: Evidence from genetic correlations and Mendelian randomization study.

Background: Numerous investigations have suggested links between circulating inflammatory proteins (CIPs) and spinal degenerative diseases (SDDs), but causality has not been proven. This study used Mendelian randomization (MR) to investigate the causal associations between 91 CIPs and cervical spondylosis (CS), prolapsed disc/slipped disc (PD/SD), spinal canal stenosis (SCS), and spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis. Methods: Genetic variants data for CIPs and SDDs were obtained from the genome-wide association studies (GWAS) database. We used inverse variance weighted (IVW) as the primary method, analyzing the validity and robustness of the results through pleiotropy and heterogeneity tests and performing reverse MR analysis to test for reverse causality. Results: The IVW results with Bonferroni correction indicated that beta-nerve growth factor (ß-NGF), C-X-C motif chemokine 6 (CXCL6), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) can increase the risk of CS. Fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19), sulfotransferase 1A1 (SULT1A1), and tumor necrosis factor-beta (TNF-ß) can increase PD/SD risk, whereas urokinase-type plasminogen activator (u-PA) can decrease the risk of PD/SD. FGF19 and TNF can increase SCS risk. STAM binding protein (STAMBP) and T-cell surface glycoprotein CD6 isoform (CD6 isoform) can increase the risk of spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis, whereas monocyte chemoattractant protein 2 (MCP2) and latency-associated peptide transforming growth factor beta 1 (LAP-TGF-ß1) can decrease spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis risk. Conclusions: MR analysis indicated the causal associations between multiple genetically predicted CIPs and the risk of four SDDs (CS, PD/SD, SCS, and spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis). This study provides reliable genetic evidence for in-depth exploration of the involvement of CIPs in the pathogenic mechanism of SDDs and provides novel potential targets for SDDs.

Combined Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Smiley Face Rod Technique Using Dual-Headed Pedicle Screws for L4 Isthmic Spondylolisthesis and L5 Spondylolysis.

Spondylolysis with pseudarthrosis may be treated surgically by repairing the spondylolysis using the smiley face rod (SFR) technique. The SFR technique can avoid adjacent segmental disease caused by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), which is one of the main surgical techniques to treat isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. A 59-year-old woman had been playing softball since she was 12 years old and was a member of a prefectural representative team. She sought treatment because of numbness in her left lower limb and difficulty playing softball. Despite conservative treatment for a year, her symptoms did not improve. Physical examination revealed decreased patellar tendon reflexes and numbness and pain from the front of the thigh to the lower leg without muscle weakness. Imaging showed L4 isthmic spondylolisthesis with Meyerding classification grade 2 anterior slip and L5 spondylolysis with pseudarthrosis. We diagnosed L4 radiculopathy caused by L4/5 foraminal stenosis and L4 isthmic spondylolisthesis with L5 spondylolysis. She underwent surgery combining the TLIF of L4/5 and the SFR technique of L5 using dual-headed pedicle screws that can fix two types of rods with L5 pedicle screws. Three months after surgery, fusion between L4/5 and fusion of the L5 pars cleft were confirmed. She resumed sports, and one year postoperatively, she was able to participate in softball games. Two years postoperatively, she could bat, run, and play defense without adjacent segmental disease. Two-segment TLIF increases adjacent segmental disease more than single-segment TLIF. Because the L5 spondylolysis had not slipped, we chose the SFR technique to preserve mobility at L5/S1. The dual-headed pedicle screw fastens two-type rods at the head of the pedicle screw, making it a suitable design for this procedure.

Impact of age on comparative outcomes of decompression alone versus fusion for L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts. RESULTS: 233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion.

Isolated decompression for degenerative spondylolisthesis is less costly than fusion even with high revision rates.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Isolated decompression and decompression with instrumented fusion are accepted surgical treatments for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Although isolated decompression is a less costly solution with similar patient-reported outcomes, it is associated with higher rates of re-operation than primary fusion. PURPOSE: To determine the costs associated with primary decompression, primary fusion, and decompression and fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. We further sought to establish at what revision rate is primary decompression still a less costly surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective database study of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) limited data set. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent single-level fusion or decompression for degenerative spondylolisthesis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of surgical care. METHODS: All inpatient stays that underwent surgery for single-level lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative spondylolisthesis in the 2019 calendar year (n=6,653) were queried from the MEDPAR limited data set. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: primary decompression (n=300), primary fusion (n=5,757), and revision fusion (n=566). Univariate analysis was conducted to determine cost differences between these groups and results were confirmed with multivariable regression. An economic analysis was then done to determine at what revision rate would primary decompression still be a less costly treatment choice. RESULTS: on univariate analysis, the cost of primary single-level decompression for spondylolisthesis was $14,690±9,484, the cost of primary single-level fusion was $26,376±11,967, and revision fusion was $26,686±11,309 (p<0.001). on multivariate analysis, primary fusion was associated with an increased cost of $3,751, and revision fusion was associated with increased cost of $7,502 (95%ci: 2,990-4,512, p<0.001). economic analysis found that a revision rate less than or equal to 43.8% would still result in primary decompression being less costly for a practice than primary fusion for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is a less costly treatment choice even with rates of revision fusion as high as 43.8%. This was true even with an assumed revision rate of 0% after primary fusion. This study solely looks at cost data, however, and many patients may still benefit from primary fusion when appropriately indicated.

Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Foraminotomy in Stable Degenerative Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis with Radicular Leg Pain: A Retrospective Study.

Objective: Endoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive option for effectively addressing lumbar degenerative diseases. This study aimed to describe the specific technology of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (PTELF) as a therapeutic intervention for managing radicular leg pain (RLP) resulting from stable degenerative lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (DLIS) and to present the associated clinical results. Methods: From March 2022 and April 2023, 25 patients were diagnosed with single-level stable DLIS with RLP and underwent PTELF. Clinical assessments utilized the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. All endoscopic surgery videos were reviewed to interpret the pathology associated with DLIS. Results: The mean age of the cohort was 65.3 ± 11.0 years. The mean preoperative ODI score, VAS score for low back, and VAS score of the leg were 64.1 ± 8.2, 7.0 ± 0.7, and 7.3 ± 0.8, respectively. These scores significantly improved to 16.3 ± 10.4, 2.0 ± 0.6, and 1.7 ± 1.0 at the final follow-up, respectively (P<0.01). The modified MacNab criteria indicated "good" or "excellent" outcomes in 92.0% of cases. Analysis of 23 surgical videos revealed 15 patients with disc herniation, nine with lower vertebral endplate involvement, consistent presence of uneven bone spurs (at the proximal lamina stump and around the foramen), and accumulated scars. Two patients experienced postoperative dysesthesia, and one encountered a recurrence of RLP. Conclusion: PTELF emerges as a potentially safe and effective procedure for alleviating RLP in patients with stable DLIS. However, additional evidence and extended follow-up periods are imperative to evaluate the feasibility and potential risks associated with PTELF.

Influence of slippage reduction and correction of lumbosacral kyphosis by single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion on spinal alignment in patients with dysplastic spondylolisthesis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of slippage reduction and correction of lumbosacral kyphosis by L5-S1 single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) on spinal alignment and clinical outcomes including postoperative complications in patients with dysplastic spondylolisthesis (DS). METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with symptomatic and severe DS who underwent L5-S1 single-level PLIF with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up after surgery were included. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain obtained on preoperative and postoperative examinations. Postoperative instrumentation failure and L5 radiculopathy were also evaluated. The preoperative and postoperative spinopelvic parameters were measured. RESULTS: The JOA score significantly improved from 21.5 ± 4.8 (preoperative) to 27.0 ± 2.5 (postoperative), with a mean recovery rate of 75.0% ± 30.4%. The VAS score for low back pain significantly improved from 44.5 ± 30.1 (preoperative) to 11.5 ± 15.9 (postoperative), and that for leg pain significantly improved from 31.0 ± 33.2 (preoperative) to 5.0 ± 10.2 (postoperative). The slip percentage (% slip) significantly improved from 59.6% ± 13.5% (preoperative) to 25.2% ± 15.0% (postoperative). The lumbosacral angle (LSA) significantly improved from 12.3° ± 9.5° (preoperative) to 1.0° ± 4.9° (postoperative). L5-S1 PLIF led to significant improvement of lumbar lordosis (from 52.0° ± 15.9° to 59.7° ± 8.0°) and pelvic incidence - lumbar lordosis mismatch (from 23.9° ± 20.6° to 13.3° ± 10.0°). Correction of lumbosacral kyphosis had a significant positive correlation with postoperative pelvic tilt (PT) (r = 0.50, P = 0.02), while postoperative % slip did not have a significant correlation with postoperative PT. CONCLUSIONS: L5-S1 PLIF for DS provided good clinical outcomes. Correction of lumbosacral kyphosis had a positive impact on regaining ideal spinopelvic balance and may be beneficial in the setting of treating DS.

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and complications between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis. METHODS: This study retrospectively compared the patients who underwent MIS TLIF (n = 37) or MIDLIF (n = 50) for spinal spondylolisthesis. Data of surgical outcomes (postoperative one-year fusion rate and time to bony fusion), clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for spine function), and complications were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: There was more 2-level fusion in MIDLIF (46% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.038). The MIS TLIF and MIDLIF groups had similar one-year fusion rate and time to fusion. The MIDLIF group had significantly lower VAS at postoperative 3-months (2.2 vs. 3.1, p = 0.002) and postoperative 1-year (1.1 vs. 2.1, p = < 0.001). ODI was not significantly different. The operation time was shorter in MIDLIF (166.1 min vs. 196.2 min, p = 0.014). The facet joint violation is higher in MIS TLIF (21.6% vs. 2%, p = 0.009). The other complications were not significantly different including rate of implant removal, revision, and adjacent segment disease. CONCLUSION: In this study, postoperative VAS, operation time, and the rate of facet joint violation were significantly higher in the MIS TLIF group. Comparable outcomes were observed between MIDLIF and MIS TLIF in terms of fusion rate, time to fusion, and postoperative ODI score.

Reconsideration and Reflection on Spinal Disorders Through the Study of Intervertebral Discs in Patients with Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed and explored the relationship between isthmic spondylolisthesis and disc degeneration by comparing the degree of disc degeneration in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis, lumbar disc herniation, and asymptomatic healthy individuals. METHODS: This study included a total of 138 cases, consisting of L5-S1 single segment lesion patients and a normal lumbar spine population. The cases were divided into 3 groups based on the type of disease: fifty eight cases in the isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) group, 50 cases in the lumbar disc herniation (LDH) group, and 30 cases in the normal lumbar vertebrae (NLV) group. RESULTS: The research findings indicate that the proportion of intervertebral disc degeneration in the LDH group is significantly higher than that in the IS group and NLV group (65.3% vs. 33.3% vs. 25.8%, P < 0.05). The Pfirrmann grades of lumbar intervertebral discs (L1-L4) in the LDH group are significantly higher than those in the IS group and NLV group (P < 0.05), and the intervertebral height index (IHI) (L1-L4) of lumbar vertebrae in the LDH group is significantly lower than that in the IS group and NLV group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the degree of intervertebral disc degeneration in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis was lighter than that in patients with LDH, and even similar to that in healthy individuals. The occurrence of IS may have slowed down the degeneration of nonaffected segment intervertebral discs through certain factors.

Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Foraminotomy for the Treatment of L5-S1 Isthmic Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Foraminal Stenosis: A 1-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis (ILS) is a prevalent spinal pathology. Radicular pain in patients is often attributed to L5-S1 ILS combined with foraminal stenosis (FS), making such patients prime candidates for surgical intervention. We herein aimed to elucidate the surgical technique and clinical outcomes of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (TELF) in the treatment of L5-S1 ILS with FS. METHODS: From September 2021 to December 2022, 20 consecutive patients were diagnosed with L5-S1 ILS with FS and underwent TELF. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, and modified MacNab criteria. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 62.4 ± 10.9 years. The mean preoperative VAS score for low back, VAS score of the leg, and Oswestry Disability Index score was 5.1 ± 1.7, 7.4 ± 0.7, and 58.0 ± 8.4, respectively. These scores significantly improved to 1.8 ± 0.7, 1.5 ± 0.6, and 15.3 ± 7.1 at 12 months postoperatively, respectively (P < 0.01). Evaluation based on the modified MacNab criteria revealed that 95.0% of patients achieved a good-to-excellent outcome. One patient underwent revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: TELF emerges as a potentially safe and effective surgical option for alleviating radicular pain in patients with L5-S1 stable ILS combined with FS. While our short-term clinical results are satisfactory, it is necessary to expand the sample size and extend the follow-up time to validate the effectiveness and long-term efficacy of TELF.