Decompression with or without Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, it is uncertain whether decompression surgery alone is noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis that had not responded to conservative management and who had single-level spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or more. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo decompression surgery (decompression-alone group) or decompression surgery with instrumented fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 30% in the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more impairment) during the 2 years after surgery, with a noninferiority margin of -15 percentage points. Secondary outcomes included the mean change in the ODI score as well as scores on the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, leg and back pain, the duration of surgery and length of hospital stay, and reoperation within 2 years. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was approximately 66 years. Approximately 75% of the patients had leg pain for more than a year, and more than 80% had back pain for more than a year. The mean change from baseline to 2 years in the ODI score was -20.6 in the decompression-alone group and -21.3 in the fusion group (mean difference, 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.8 to 4.3). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 95 of 133 patients (71.4%) in the decompression-alone group and 94 of 129 patients (72.9%) in the fusion group had a reduction of at least 30% in the ODI score (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -12.2 to 9.4), showing the noninferiority of decompression alone. In the per-protocol analysis, 80 of 106 patients (75.5%) and 83 of 110 patients (75.5%), respectively, had a reduction of at least 30% in the ODI score (difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.4 to 11.4), showing noninferiority. The results for the secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as those for the primary outcome. Successful fusion was achieved with certainty in 86 of 100 patients (86.0%) who had imaging available at 2 years. Reoperation was performed in 15 of 120 patients (12.5%) in the decompression-alone group and in 11 of 121 patients (9.1%) in the fusion group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients who underwent surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, most of whom had symptoms for more than a year, decompression alone was noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion over a period of 2 years. Reoperation occurred somewhat more often in the decompression-alone group than in the fusion group. (NORDSTEN-DS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02051374.).

Forearm bone mineral density predicts screw loosening after lumbar fusion similar to lumbar Hounsfield unit value in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Preoperative bone density assessment is necessary to predict screw loosening. The forearm BMD is a useful predictor of BMD-related complications after lumbar operation. Our results show that the forearm BMD is as effective a predictor of screw loosening as the lumbar average HU value. Measurement of the forearm BMD may be a useful adjunct in predicting screw loosening following lumbar fusion. PURPOSE: To determine the relationship between forearm bone mineral density (BMD) and the risk of pedicle screw loosening in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 270 patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. The patients were divided into two groups on the basis of the with or without loose screws: the loosening group and the non-loosening group. The patient's gender, age, BMI, smoking and diabetes histories, and the operative segment were recorded as the basic information. The Hounsfield unit (HU) value for the BMD of the L1-4 lumbar was measured using computed tomography. The patient's distal one-third of the length of the radius and ulna of the non-dominant forearm was chosen as the site for dual-energy X-ray (DXA) bone density testing. RESULTS: The rate of screw loosening was 13% at a minimum 12 months follow-up. Average forearm BMD (0.461 ± 0.1 vs 0.577 ± 0.1, p < 0.001) and mean HU value (L1-4) (121.1 ± 27.3 vs 155.6 ± 32.2, p < 0.001) were lower in the screw loosening group than those in the non-loosening group. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the forearm BMD (OR 0.840; 95%CI 0.797-0.886) and HU value (L1-4) (OR 0.952; 95%CI 0.935-0.969) were independent risk factor for screw loosening. The area under the curve (AUC) for the forearm BMD and HU value for prediction of pedicle screw loosening was 0.802 and 0.811. The forearm BMD cut-off for predicting pedicle screw loosening was 0.543 (sensitivity, 0.800; specificity, 0.864). CONCLUSIONS: The forearm BMD was an independent risk factor for loosening of the lumbar pedicle screws. The forearm BMD was a valid predictor of pedicle screw loosening in patients undergoing lumbar fusion, as was the CT HU value.

Individualized Design Application of 3-Dimensional Printing Navigational Template for Pedicle Screw Installation: A Training Case Report.

BACKGROUND The proper installation for pedicle screws by the traditional method of surgeons dependent on experience is not guaranteed, and educational solutions have progressed from chalkboards to electronic teaching platforms. We designed a case of 3-dimensional printing drill guide template as a surgical application, which can accurately navigate implantation of pedicle screws, and assessed its effect for simulative training. MATERIAL AND METHODS We randomly selected a set of computed tomography data for spondylolisthesis. A navigational template of pedicles and screws was designed by software Mimics and Pro-E, where trajectories of directions and angles guiding the nail way were manipulated for screwing based on anatomy, and its solid model was fabricated by a BT600 3D printer. The screws were integrated and installed to observe their stability. RESULTS The navigational model and custom spine implants were examined to be compatibly immobilized, because they are tolerant to radiation and stable against hydrolysis. The screw size and template were fit accurately to the vertebrae intraosseously, because the pilot holes were drilled and the trajectories were guided by cannulas with visible routes. During the surgical workflow, the patient reported appreciation and showed substantial compliance, while having few complications with this approach. Compared with fluoroscopy-assisted or free-hand techniques, the effect of simulative training during processing was excellent. CONCLUSIONS The surgical biomodel is practical for the procedural accuracy of surgical guides or as an educational drill. This fostering a style of "practice substituting for teaching" sets a paragon of keeping up with time and is worthy of recommendation.

Management of Low and High Grades Spondylolisthesis.

Spondylolisthesis is defined as the displacement or misalignment of the vertebral bodies one on top of the other. It comes from the Greek spondlylos, which means vertebra, and olisthesis, which means sliding on a slope. The nomenclature used to refer to spondylolisthesis consists of the following elements: vertebral segment (vertebrae involved), degree of sliding of one vertebral body over the other, the position of the upper vertebral body with respect to the lower one (anterolisthesis/retrolisthesis), and finally the etiology [1].

Evaluation of "appropriate use criteria" for surgical decision-making in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. A controlled, multicentre, prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) for surgery is difficult. Appropriate use criteria (AUC) have been developed to clarify the indications for LDS surgery but have not been evaluated in controlled studies. METHODS: This prospective, controlled, multicentre study involved 908 patients (561 surgical and 347 non-surgical controls; 69.5 ± 9.7y; 69% female), treated as per normal clinical practice. Their appropriateness for surgery was afterwards determined using the AUC. They completed the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) at baseline and 12 months' follow-up. Multiple regression adjusting for confounders evaluated the influence of appropriateness designation and treatment received on the 12-month COMI and achievement of MCIC (≥ 2.2-point-reduction). RESULTS: As per convention, appropriate (A) and uncertain (U) groups were combined for comparison with the inappropriate (I) group. For the adjusted 12-month COMI, the benefit of surgery relative to non-surgical care was not significantly greater for the A/U than the I group (p = 0.189). There was, however, a greater treatment effect of surgery for those with higher baseline COMI (p = 0.035). The groups' adjusted probabilities of achieving MCIC were: 83% (A/U, receiving surgery), 71% (I, receiving surgery), 50% (A/U, receiving non-surgical care), and 32% (I, receiving non-surgical care). CONCLUSIONS: A/U patients receiving surgery had the highest chances of achieving MCIC, but the AUC were not able to identify which patients had a greater treatment effect of surgery relative to non-surgical care. The identification of other characteristics that predict a greater treatment effect of surgery, in addition to baseline COMI, is required to improve decision-making.

Is unilateral-approach full-endoscopic lumbar fusion effective for single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis with bilateral symptoms? A preliminary report of 43 CT analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical results and radiological parameters changes after unilateral-approach endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) for lumbar spondylolisthesis with bilateral symptoms. METHODS: 43 single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis patients with bilateral lower limb symptoms were included from June 2020 to May 2022. All patients underwent unilateral-approach Endo-LIF and postoperative computed tomography. Radiological parameters including disk height (DH), degree of upper vertebral slip (DUVS), and foramen intervertebral parameters including bilateral foraminal height (FH), contralateral foraminal areas (FA) were evaluated. The clinical outcomes including low back pain and bilateral leg pain were evaluated using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) before and after surgery. RESULTS: All cases were successfully completed surgery and followed for average 15.16 ± 5.2 months. DH (44% ± 11%) and DUVS were significantly improvement postoperatively compared with preoperatively (p < 0.05). Statistically significant increases in bilateral FH (25% ± 11% on the surgical side, 17% ± 8% on the contralateral side) and contralateral FA (26% ± 6%) were observed (p < 0.05). The VAS and the ODI scores were significantly decreased in comparison with the preoperative scores (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Unilateral-approach with contralateral indirect decompression in Endo-LIF can acquire satisfactory clinical outcomes. Therefore, unilateral-approach Endo-LIF may be a promising option for lumbar spondylolisthesis with bilateral symptoms.

Are the facet joint parameters risk factors for cage subsidence after TLIF in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis?

PURPOSE: To assess whether preoperative facet joint parameters in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) are risk factors for cage subsidence (CS) following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS: We enrolled 112 patients with L4-5 DS who underwent TLIF and were followed up for > 1 year. Preoperative demographic characteristics, functional areas of paraspinal muscles and psoas major muscles (PS), total functional area relative to vertebral body area, functional cross-sectional area (FCSA) of PS and lumbar spine extensor muscles, normalized FCSA of PS to the vertebral body area (FCSA/VBA), lumbar indentation value, facet joint orientation, facet joint tropism (FT), cross-sectional area of the superior articular process (SAPA), intervertebral height index, vertebral Hounsfield unit (HU) value, lordosis distribution index, t-scores, sagittal plane parameters, visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain, VAS for leg pain, Oswestry disability index, global alignment and proportion score and European quality of life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) were assessed. RESULTS: Postoperative CS showed significant correlations with preoperative FO(L3-4), FT (L3 and L5), SAPA(L3-5), L5-HU, FCSA/VBA(L3-4), Pre- T-score, post-6-month VAS for back pain and EQ-5D scores among other factors. According to ROC curve analysis, the optimal decision points for FO(L3-4), L3-SAPA, FCSA/VBA(L3-4), L5-HU, and Pre- T-score were 35.88°, 43.76°,114.93, 1.73, 1.55, 136, and - 2.49. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified preoperative FO, SAPA, preoperative CT, Pre- T-score and the FCSA/VBA as independent risk factors for CS after TLIF for DS. These risk factors should enable spinal surgeons to closely monitor and prevent the occurrence of CS.

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral screw fixation and stress endplate augmentation for treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with osteoporosis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF)combined with anterolateral screw fixation (AF) and Stress Endplate Augmentation(SEA) versus OLIF-AF in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS)with osteoporosis (OP). METHODS: 30 patients underwent OLIF-AF-SEA (SEA group) were matched with 30 patients received OLIF-AF (control group), in terms of sex, age, body mass index (BMI) and bone mineral density (BMD). Clinical outcomes including visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back pain (VAS-LBP), leg pain (VAS-LP), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated at different postoperative intervals and comparedwith their preoperative counterparts. Radiographic outcomes such as disk height (DH), slip distance (SD), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), cage subsidence (CS) rate and fusion rate were evaluated at different postoperative intervals and compared with their preoperative counterparts. RESULTS: SEA group presented to be better at 3-month and 12-month follow-up, the VAS-LBP, VAS-LP and ODI scores of the SEA group were significantly lower than the control group (3-month SEA vs control: 2.30±0.70 vs 3.30±0.75, 2.03±0.72 vs 2.90±0.76,15.60±2.36 vs 23.23±3.07, respectively, all p<0.05. VAS-LBP and ODI 12-month SEA vs control: 1.27±0.74 vs 1.93±0.58, 12.20±1.88 vs 14.43±1.89,respectively, all p<0.05). At 24-month follow-up, both groups showed no difference in fusion rate (83.33% vs 90.00%, p=0.45), while SEA group showed a lower CS rate (13.33% vs 53.33%, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: OLIF-AF-SEA was safe with no adverse effects and resulted in lower CS rate and better sagittal balance. OLIF-AF-SEA is a promising surgical method for treating patients with DLS-OP.

Radiographic and surgery-related predictive factors for increased segmental lumbar lordosis following lumbar fusion surgery in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate preoperative (pre-op) radiographic characteristics and specific surgical interventions in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) who underwent lumbar fusion surgery (LFS), with a focus on analyzing predictors of postoperative restoration of segmental lumbar lordosis (SLL). METHODS: A retrospective review at a single center identified consecutive single-level DLS patients who underwent LFS between 2016 and 2022. Radiographic measures included disc angle (DA), SLL, lumbar lordosis (LL), anterior/posterior disc height (ADH/PDH), spondylolisthesis percentage (SP), intervertebral disc degeneration, and paraspinal muscle quality. Surgery-related measures included cage position, screw insertion depth, spondylolisthesis reduction rate, and disc height restoration rate. A change in SLL ≥ 4° indicated increased segmental lumbar lordosis (ISLL), and unincreased segmental lumbar lordosis (UISLL) < 4°. Propensity score matching was employed for a 1:1 match between ISLL and UISLL patients based on age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, and osteoporosis condition. RESULTS: A total of 192 patients with an average follow-up of 20.9 months were enrolled. Compared to UISLL patients, ISLL patients had significantly lower pre-op DA (6.78° vs. 11.84°), SLL (10.73° vs. 18.24°), LL (42.59° vs. 45.75°), and ADH (10.09 mm vs. 12.21 mm) (all, P < 0.05). ISLL patients were predisposed to more severe intervertebral disc degeneration (P = 0.047) and higher SP (21.30% vs. 19.39%, P = 0.019). The cage was positioned more anteriorly in ISLL patients (67.00% vs. 60.08%, P = 0.000), with more extensive reduction of spondylolisthesis (- 73.70% vs. - 56.16%, P = 0.000) and higher restoration of ADH (33.34% vs. 8.11%, P = 0.000). Multivariate regression showed that lower pre-op SLL (OR 0.750, P = 0.000), more anterior cage position (OR 1.269, P = 0.000), and a greater spondylolisthesis reduction rate (OR 0.965, P = 0.000) significantly impacted SLL restoration. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-op SLL, cage position, and spondylolisthesis reduction rate were identified as significant predictors of SLL restoration after LFS for DLS. Surgeons are advised to meticulously select patients based on pre-op SLL and strive to position the cage more anteriorly while minimizing spondylolisthesis to maximize SLL restoration.

What is the early fate of adjacent segmental lordosis compensation at L3-4 and L5-S1 following a lateral versus transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion at L4-5?

INTRODUCTION: Degenerative spondylolisthesis causes translational and angular malalignment, resulting in a loss of segmental lordosis. This leads to compensatory adjustments in adjacent levels to maintain balance. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are common techniques at L4-5. This study compares compensatory changes at adjacent L3-4 and L5-S1 levels six months post LLIF versus TLIF for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4-5. METHODS: A retrospective study included patients undergoing L4-5 LLIF or TLIF with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation (no posterior osteotomy) for grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Pre-op and 6-month post-op radiographs measured segmental lordosis (L3-L4, L4-L5, L5-S1), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence (PI), along with PI-LL mismatch. Multiple regressions were used for hypothesis testing. RESULTS: 113 patients (61 LLIF, 52 TLIF) were studied. TLIF showed less change in L4-5 lordosis (mean = 1.04°, SD = 4.34) compared to LLIF (mean = 4.99°, SD = 5.53) (p = 0.003). L4-5 angle changes didn't correlate with L3-4 changes, and no disparity between LLIF and TLIF was found (all p > 0.16). In LLIF, greater L4-5 lordosis change predicted reduced compensatory L5-S1 lordosis (p = 0.04), while no significant relationship was observed in TLIF patients (p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: LLIF at L4-5 increases lordosis at the operated level, with compensatory decrease at L5-S1 but not L3-4. This reciprocal loss at adjacent L5-S1 may explain inconsistent improvement in lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) post L4-5 fusion.

Variations in surgical practice and short-term outcomes for degenerative lumbar scoliosis and spondylolisthesis: do surgeon training and experience matter?

For diverse procedures, sizable geographic variation exists in rates and outcomes of surgery, including for degenerative lumbar spine conditions. Little is known about how surgeon training and experience are associated with surgeon-level variations in spine surgery practice and short-term outcomes. This retrospective observational analysis characterized variations in surgical operations for degenerative lumbar scoliosis or spondylolisthesis, two common age-related conditions. The study setting was two large spine surgery centers in one region during 2017-19. Using data (International Classification of Diseases-10th edition and current procedural terminology codes) extracted from electronic health record systems, we characterized surgeon-level variations in practice (use of instrumented fusion - a more extensive procedure that involves device-related risks) and short-term postoperative outcomes (major in-hospital complications and readmissions). Next, we tested for associations between surgeon training (specialty and spine fellowship) and experience (career stage and operative volume) and use of instrumented fusion as well as outcomes. Eighty-nine surgeons performed 2481 eligible operations. For the study diagnoses, spine surgeons exhibited substantial variation in operative volume, use of instrumented fusion, and postoperative outcomes. Among surgeons above the median operative volume, use of instrumented fusion ranged from 0% to >90% for scoliosis and 9% to 100% for spondylolisthesis, while rates of major in-hospital complications ranged from 0% to 25% for scoliosis and from 0% to 14% for spondylolisthesis. For scoliosis, orthopedic surgeons were more likely than neurosurgeons to perform instrumented fusion for scoliosis [49% vs. 33%, odds ratio (OR) = 2.3, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.3-4.2, P-value = .006] as were fellowship-trained surgeons (49% vs. 25%, OR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.6-5.8; P = .001). Fellowship-trained surgeons had lower readmission rates. Surgeons with higher operative volumes used instrumented fusion more often (OR = 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2, P < .05 for both diagnoses) and had lower rates of major in-hospital complications (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97; P = .006). Surgical practice can vary greatly for degenerative spine conditions, even within the same region and among colleagues at the same institution. Surgical specialty and subspecialty, in addition to recent operative volume, can be linked to variations in spine surgeons' practice patterns and outcomes. These findings reinforce the notion that residency and fellowship training may contribute to variation and present important opportunities to optimize surgical practice over the course of surgeons' careers. Future efforts to reduce unexplained variation in surgical practice could test interventions focused on graduate medical education. Graphical Abstract.

Biomechanical changes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion with different fixation techniques in degenerative spondylolisthesis lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.

OBJECTIVE: There is a dearth of comprehensive research on the stability of the spinal biomechanical structure when combining Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) with internal fixation methods. Hence, we have devised this experiment to meticulously examine and analyze the biomechanical changes that arise from combining OLIF surgery with different internal fixation techniques in patients diagnosed with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Seven validated finite element models were reconstructed based on computed tomography scan images of the L3-L5 segment. These models included the intact model, a stand-alone (S-A) OLIF model, a lateral screw rod (LSR) OLIF model, a bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) OLIF model, an unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) OLIF model, a bilateral CBT (BCBT) OLIF model, and an unilateral CBT(UCBT) OLIF model. The range of motion (ROM), as well as stress levels in the cage, L4 lower endplate, L5 upper endplate, and fixation constructs were assessed across these different model configurations. RESULTS: S-A model had the highest average ROM of six motion modes, followed by LSR, UPS, UCBT, BPS and BCBT. The BCBT model had a relatively lower cage stress than the others. The maximum peak von Mises stress of the fixation constructs was found in the LSR model. The maximum peak von Mises stress of L4 lower endplate was found in the S-A model. The peak von Mises stress on the L4 lower endplate of the rest surgical models showed no significant difference. The maximum peak von Mises stress of the L5 upper endplate was found in the S-A model. The minimum peak von Mises stress of the L5 upper endplate was found in the BCBT model. No significant difference was found for the peak von Mises stress of the L5 upper endplate among LSR, BPS, UPS and UCBT models. CONCLUSION: Among the six different fixation techniques, BCBT exhibited superior biomechanical stability and minimal stress on the cage-endplate interface. It was followed by BPS, UCBT, UPS, and LSR in terms of effectiveness. Conversely, S-A OLIF demonstrated the least stability and resulted in increased stress on both the cage and endplates. Combining OLIF with BCBT fixation technique enhanced biomechanical stability compared to BPS and presented as a less invasive alternative treatment for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Return to flight duty (RTFD) after posterior lumbar spine surgery for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (LIS) in Chinese military pilots.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (LIS) present significant challenges for military pilots, which may result in grounding if not effectively managed. Surgical treatment for LDH and LIS may offer a pathway to return to flight duty (RTFD), but recent data on this crucial topic is lacking. This study seeks to address this gap by investigating the RTFD outcomes among Chinese military pilots who have undergone lumbar spine surgery for symptomatic LDH and LIS. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on active-duty military pilots who underwent isolated decompressive or fusion procedures at an authorized military medical center from March 1, 2007, to March 1, 2023. The analysis utilized descriptive statistics to examine demographic, occupational, surgical, and outcome data, with a particular focus on preoperative flight status, recommended clearance by spine surgeons, and actual RTFD outcomes and time. RESULTS: Among the identified cases of active-duty military pilots with LDH or LIS treated by lumbar surgery (n = 24), 70.8% (17 of 24) consistently maintained RTFD status without encountering surgical complications or medical issues during the follow-up period. Of the seven pilots who did not RTFD, one retired within a year of surgery, two had anterior cruciate ligament injuries, three had residual radicular symptoms, and one had chronic low back pain. Excluding pilots who retired and did not RTFD for reasons unrelated to their lumbar conditions, the RTFD rate stood at 81.0% (17 of 21). The median time for recommended clearance by spine surgeons was 143.0 days (inter-quartile range, 116.5-196.0), while the median duration for actual RTFD attainment was 221.0 days (inter-quartile range, 182.0-300.0). The median follow-up post-lumbar surgery was 1.7 years (inter-quartile range, 0.4-2.9). CONCLUSION: Most military pilots diagnosed with symptomatic LDH and LIS can continue their careers and regain active-duty flight status following lumbar spine surgery, as reflected by the high RTFD rate. Lumbar spine surgery can successfully alleviate the physical constraints associated with spinal conditions, facilitating the return of military pilots to their demanding profession.

Decompression alone or fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis? A systematic review and meta analysis.

PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review and metaanalysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid Medline databases was conducted to find randomized control trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that compared decompression alone and decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis. Operation time; reoperation; postoperative complications; postoperative Oswestry disability index(ODI) scores and scores related to back and leg pain were collected from eligible studies for meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 3 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies with 6182 patients. The decompression alone group showed less operative time(P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss(p = 0.000), and no significant difference in postoperative complications was observed in randomized controlled trials(p = 0.428) or cohort studies(p = 0.731). There was no significant difference between the other two groups in reoperation(P = 0.071), postoperative ODI scores and scores related to back and leg pain. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that the decompression alone group performed better in terms of operation time and intraoperative blood loss, and there was no significant difference between the two surgical methods in rate of reoperation and postoperative complications, ODI, low back pain and leg pain. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that decompression alone is not inferior to decompression and fusion in patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression with removal of the posterosuperior region underneath the slipping vertebral body for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) is an ideal minimally invasive decompression technique for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The posterosuperior region underneath the slipping vertebral body (PRSVB) formed by DLS is an important factor exacerbating LSS in patients. Therefore, the necessity of removing the PRSVB during ventral decompression remains to be discussed. This study aimed to describe the procedure of PTED combined with the removal of the PRSVB and to evaluate the clinical outcomes. METHODS: LSS with DLS was diagnosed in 44 consecutive patients at our institution from January 2019 to July 2021, and they underwent PTED combined with the removal of the PRSVB. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 69.5 ± 7.1 years. The mean preoperative ODI score, VAS score of the low back, and VAS score of the leg were 68.3 ± 10.8, 5.8 ± 1.0, and 7.7 ± 1.1, respectively, which improved to 18.8 ± 5.0, 1.4 ± 0.8, and 1.6 ± 0.7, respectively, at 12 months postoperatively. The proportion of patients presenting "good" and "excellent" ratings according to the modified MacNab criteria was 93.2%. The percent slippage in spondylolisthesis preoperatively (16.0% ± 3.3%) and at the end of follow-up (15.8% ± 3.3%) did not differ significantly (p>0.05). One patient had a dural tear, and one patient had postoperative dysesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the removal of PRSVB during the PTED process may be a beneficial surgical procedure for alleviating clinical symptoms in patients with LSS and DLS. However, long-term follow-up is needed to study clinical effects.

Minimally invasive versus mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in managing low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.

DATA BACKGROUND: Because the traditional open-TLIF approach has several drawbacks, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches for TLIF (MISTLIF) have been developed to speed up recovery after surgery and minimize pressure on the para-spinal muscles, necessitating a cost-utility analysis for comparison in healthcare reforms. OBJECTIVES AND AIM OF THE WORK: This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical parameters between mini-open TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery in patients with single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. HYPOTHESIS: This study hypothesizes that both minimally invasive and mini-open methods using sublaminar trimming laminoplasty (SLTL) (while preserving midline structures) and interbody cages have comparable mid- and long-term clinical and radiological outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were performed on 120 patients who underwent single-level TLIF procedures with a minimum of two years of follow-up utilizing either the mini-open (n = 60) or MIS (n = 60) technique. Records of the operation's time frame, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, duration of bed rest, and complications were recorded. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for both groups were utilized to assess improvements in clinical scores, and t tests were employed to statistically compare the outcomes. For comparison, radiological parameters, including lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence (PI), and localized lordosis at the index level, were measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up. To assess postoperative interbody fusion, the Bridwell grading system was used. RESULTS: In the Mini-open TLIF group, the average follow-up time was 24.91 ± 5.7 months, while in the MIS-TLIF group, the average follow-up time was 25.15 ± 4.2 months. In the MIS-TLIF group, the mean operation and radiological time were longer. However, compared to the Mini-open TLIF group, the MISTLIF group experienced less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. The MIS-TLIF group outperformed the Open-TLIF group in terms of the VAS score for back pain and the ODI at less than 6 months following surgery, and the differences were statistically significant. However, at the final follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences in the VAS score for the back between the two groups, but the ODI score was significantly greater in the MIS-TLIF group. Both groups' lumbar lordosis and focal lordosis significantly improved at the index level, with the Mini-open-TLIF group showing more focal lordosis. The interbody fusion rate did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: MIS-TLIF and mini-open-TLIF can be surgically effective in treating single-level degenerative lumbar spine spondylolisthesis.

Biportal endoscopic-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw placement and lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopically assisted screw fixation with lumbar interbody fusion is rarely performed. We succeeded in implanting the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws under the guidance of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE). METHOD: We attempted endoscopically assisted screw fixation in a patient with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Through a third portal, ipsilateral CBT screws were implanted without complications. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully performed unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) with CBT and reversed CBT screws. Compared with percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement, this procedure is a minimally invasive, endoscopic alternative that allows precise screw placement.

Free Vascularized Scapula tip Flap to L5-S1 Vertebral Defect After Chronic Infection Related to Interbody Fusion Cage: A Case Report.

Septic nonunion after vertebral fusion can lead to significant patient disability. The management of septic nonunions usually involves surgical debridement, bone fixation, and antibiotic therapy. Particularly challenging is lumbosacral vertebral nonunions, which necessitate a difficult surgical approach. We present a novel approach using a scapula tip free flap through an intra-abdominal approach to reconstruct a L5-S1 vertebral defect after a septic nonunion. Our patient, 31-year-old man, with no medical conditions, had a fusion of L5-S1 due to severe lower back pain secondary to isthmic spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Despite multiple attempts of surgical fusion, postoperatively the patient developed a septic nonunion. Following a modified DAIR, the nonunion was reconstructed with a scapula tip bone flap 4 × 3 × 2 cm. The subscapular vessels were anastomosed to the deep inferior epigastric vessels after an intra-abdominal inset. The patient was discharged at 15 days postoperatively without any complications. At 1-year follow-up the patient is pain-free, off opiate analgesia with radiological evidence of fusion between the scapula tip, L5 and the S1 vertebral body. This case report describes the use, for the first time, of a free scapula tip, to a lumbosacral spinal defect. The use of the free scapula tip flap may be considered for reconstruction of osseous spinal defects due to its long pedicle and the unique bone shape.

Does vacuum phenomenon at non-fused discs affect the postoperative course after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients showing a positive value of difference in lumbar lordosis?

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative difference in lumbar lordosis (DiLL) was associated with surgical outcomes after single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Patients with DiLL>0 (DiLL (+)) tended to show worse clinical outcomes and postoperative greater restoration of lumbar lordosis (LL). However, some patients with DiLL (+) showed relatively good outcomes and no postoperative LL restration. This study aimed to elucidate whether the lumbar intervertebral disc vacuum phenomenon (VP) influences clinical course after single-level TLIF in patients with DiLL (+) and DiLL (-). METHODS: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with single-level TLIF were included. Pre- and postoperative LL were measured, and postoperative LL improvement was calculated. Preoperative DiLL was calculated as preoperative supine LL minus standing LL. Severity of VP at the non-fused discs (SVP (non-FS)) was evaluated using preoperative reconstructed computed tomography imaging. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry disability index, visual analogue scale (VAS; low back pain (LBP), lower-extremity pain, numbness, and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire. Patients were stratified by the median preoperative SVP (non-FS) score into severe and mild VP groups in patients with DiLL (+) or DiLL (-), and their surgical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 89 patients were included. In patients with DiLL (+) (n = 37), patients with severe VP showed worse clinical outcomes, particulary for LBP and DiLL (+) patients with mild VP showed greater LL improvement (6.5° ± 10.0°). In patients with DiLL(-) (n = 52), patients with severe VP showed worse clinical outcomes, particularly for LBP and no differences in preoperative, postoperative, and improvement of LL were observed between two groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with DiLL (+) and DiLL (-) showed different clinical courses depending on VP severity at the non-fused discs after single-level TLIF.

[Spondylolisthesis]. / Spondylolisthese.

Spondylolisthesis is a frequent disease that is found in 20% of the adult population and is particularly accompanied by lumbar back pain. Degenerative spondylolisthesis develops in adulthood and is most often found in the L4/5 segment, in contrast to nondegenerative spondylolisthesis which is most often situated in the L5/S1 segment. Prior to every treatment the heterogeneous disease pattern has to be classified according to the severity grade of the olisthesis and to the Spinal Deformity Study Group (SDSG) classification. High-grade spondylolisthesis should preferably be surgically treated and low-grade spondylolisthesis should preferably be treated conservatively. In approximately 50% of all recently acquired spondylolistheses healing of the lysis can be achieved by a consequently carried out conservative treatment.