Clinical outcome in decompression alone versus decompression and instrumented fusion in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: In the surgical treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis, it is debatable whether instrumented fusion is mandatory in addition to decompression. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to assess the long-term effect of decompression alone compared with decompression and instrumented fusion in patients who underwent the intervention of their own preference. The results were compared with those in patients who underwent randomly assigned treatment. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective observational multicenter cohort study, including 91 patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis assigned to undergo either decompression alone (n = 44) or decompression and fusion (n = 47). The main outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) scores and the patient's perceived recovery at the 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were visual analog scale (VAS) leg pain and back pain scores and the reoperation rate. A meta-analysis was performed for data from this cohort study (n = 91) and from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) previously reported by the authors (n = 84). Subgroup analyses were performed on these combined data for age, sex, weight, smoking, and Meyerding grade. RESULTS: At the 12-week follow-up, improvements of RDQ scores were comparable for the two procedures (decompression alone [D group] 4.4, 95% CI 2.3-6.5; decompression and fusion [DF group] 5.8, 95% CI -4.3 to 1.4; p = 0.31). Likewise, VAS leg pain scores (D group 35.0, 95% CI 24.5-45.6; DF group 47.5, 95% CI 37.4-57.5; p = 0.09) and VAS back pain scores (D group 23.5, 95% CI 13.3-33.7; DF group 34.0, 95% CI 24.1-43.8; p = 0.15) were comparable. At the 2-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of scores for RDQ (difference -3.1, 95% CI -6.4 to 0.3, p = 0.07), VAS leg pain (difference -7.4, 95% CI -22.1 to 7.2, p = 0.31), and VAS back pain (difference -11.4, 95% CI -25.7 to 2.9, p = 0.12). In contrast, patient-perceived recovery from leg pain was significantly higher in the DF group (79% vs 51%, p = 0.02). Subgroup analyses did not demonstrate a superior outcome for decompression alone compared with decompression and fusion. Nine patients (20.5%) underwent reoperation in total, all in the D group. The meta-analysis including both the cohort and RCT populations yielded an estimated pooled mean difference in RDQ of -3.7 (95% CI -5.94 to -1.55, p = 0.0008) in favor of decompression and fusion at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis, at the 2-year follow-up, patients who underwent decompression and fusion showed superior functional outcome and perceived recovery compared with those who underwent decompression alone. No subgroups benefited from decompression alone. Therefore, decompression and fusion is recommended over decompression alone as a primary surgical treatment option in isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Decompression alone versus decompression and instrumented fusion for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The most advocated surgical technique to treat symptoms of isthmic spondylolisthesis is decompression with instrumented fusion. A less-invasive classical approach has also been reported, which consists of decompression only. In this study the authors compared the clinical outcomes of decompression only with those of decompression with instrumented fusion in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Eighty-four patients with lumbar radiculopathy or neurogenic claudication secondary to low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis were randomly assigned to decompression only (n = 43) or decompression with instrumented fusion (n = 41). Primary outcome parameters were scores on the Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), separate visual analog scales (VASs) for back pain and leg pain, and patient report of perceived recovery at 12-week and 2-year follow-ups. The proportion of reoperations was scored as a secondary outcome measure. Repeated measures ANOVA according to the intention-to-treat principle was performed. RESULTS: Decompression alone did not show superiority in terms of disability scores at 12-week follow-up (p = 0.32, 95% CI -4.02 to 1.34), nor in any other outcome measure. At 2-year follow-up, RDQ disability scores improved more in the fusion group (10.3, 95% CI 3.9-8.2, vs 6.0, 95% CI 8.2-12.4; p = 0.006, 95% CI -7.3 to -1.3). Likewise, back pain decreased more in the fusion group (difference: -18.3 mm, CI -32.1 to -4.4, p = 0.01) on a 100-mm VAS scale, and a higher proportion of patients perceived recovery as showing "good results" (44% vs 74%, p = 0.01). Cumulative probabilities for reoperation were 47% in the decompression and 13% in the fusion group (p < 0.001) at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis, decompression with instrumented fusion resulted in comparable short-term results, significantly better long-term outcomes, and fewer reoperations than decompression alone. Decompression with instrumented fusion is a superior surgical technique that should in general be offered as a first treatment option for isthmic spondylolisthesis, but not for degenerative spondylolisthesis, which has a different etiology.

Periprosthetic Joint Infection after Endoprosthetic Reconstruction: Saving the Limb-Salvage.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates mega-endoprosthetic survival after revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and two-staged reconstruction using a cement spacer. Mega-endoprosthetics offer patients an important treatment option for limb salvage. However, PJI is a devastating complication which affects between 2-10% of patients. It commonly results in revisions, amputation, and sometimes death. Literature in terms of success rates, limb salvage and Megaprostheses survival after revision for infection is limited. We present here our experience and the impact of length of the spacer in prostheses survival. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was implemented using Fisher's exact test for categorical data and the Kaplan-Meier method for prosthesis survival. Patient information was acquired through our institution's electronic medical records. Variables such as diagnosis, complications, length of cement spacer, and number of surgeries were recorded. We analyzed spacer length and prosthesis survival based on these variables. RESULTS: Fisher's Exact test showed no correlation between length of spacer and amount of repeat surgery (p = 0.245). After two-stage revision and mega-prosthesis insertion, there was a 63.2% chance of complication and a 26.3% chance of amputation. This indicates a 73.7% probability for limb salvage in this sample (Kaplan-Meier). CONCLUSION: These data suggest long-term viability of mega-endoprostheses after two-stage revision despite a high complication rate.