ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter analysis of two groups of patients surgically treated for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is widely performed. However, few reports have compared the outcome of PLF to that of PLIF for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Patients with L4 unstable spondylolisthesis with Meyerding grade II or more, slip of >10° or >4 mm upon maximum flexion and extension bending, and posterior opening of >5 degree upon flexion bending were studied. Patients were treated from January 2008 to January 2010. Patients who underwent PLF (n=12) and PLIF (n=19) were followed-up for >2 years. Radiographic findings and clinical outcomes evaluated by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were compared between the two groups. Radiographic evaluation included slip angle, translation, slip angle and translation during maximum flexion and extension bending, intervertebral disc height, lumbar lordotic angle, and fusion rate. RESULTS: JOA scores of the PLF group before surgery and at final follow-up were 12.3±4.8 and 24.1±3.7, respectively; those of the PLIF group were 14.7±4.8 and 24.2±7.8, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. Correction of slip estimated from postoperative slip angle, translation, and maintenance of intervertebral disc height in the PLIF group was significantly (p<0.05) better than those in the PLF group. However, there was no significant difference in lumbar lordotic angle, slip angle and translation angle upon maximum flexion, or extension bending. Fusion rates of the PLIF and PLF groups had no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The L4-L5 level posterior instrumented fusion for unstable spondylolisthesis using both PLF and PLIF could ameliorate clinical symptoms when local stability is achieved.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) is a concern for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). In this study, QOL was examined using the 5-item EuroQol (EQ-5D). METHODS: QOL and activities of daily living (ADL) were surveyed for 91 patients who visited 18 medical institutions in our prefecture and were diagnosed with LSS-associated intermittent claudication. A second survey was performed after ≥6 weeks for 79 of the subjects to evaluate therapy with limaprost (an oral prostaglandin E1 derivative) or etodolac (an NSAID). Symptoms, maximum walking time, QOL, ADL items, and relationships among these variables were investigated for all 91 patients. Leg pain, leg numbness, and low back pain while walking were surveyed by use of VAS scores (0-100). RESULTS: Leg pain, leg numbness, and low back pain while walking (VAS ≥25) were present in 83.5, 62.6, and 54.9 % of the patients in the first survey, and approximately half of the patients had a maximum walking time <15 min. The mean EQ-5D utility value for QOL was 0.59 ± 0.12. This value was significantly associated with maximum walking time (p = 0.030) based on classification of patients into groups with walking times <7.5, 7.5-15, 15-30, and >30 min, showing that maximum walking time affected health-related QOL. Of the 79 patients who completed the second survey, 56 had taken limaprost and 23 (control group) had received etodolac. Limaprost improved possible walking time, reduced ADL interference, and significantly increased the EQ-5D utility score, whereas no significant changes occurred in the control group. Maximum walking time was prolonged by ≥10 min and the EQ-5D utility value was improved by ≥0.1 points in significantly more patients in the limaprost group than in the control group. CONCLUSION: According to the findings of this survey, at an average of 8 weeks after administration limaprost improved symptoms, QOL, and ADL in LSS patients whereas treatment with an NSAID reduced pain but did not have any other effects.
