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].

Repair of type II paraesophageal hernia with Nissen fundoplication in a patient with von Willebrand disease and spondylolisthesis - a clinical case report.

Hiatal hernias continue to be fairly common in clinical practice. However, the variety of different symptoms presented by patients may hinder establishing the ultimate diagnosis. Nevertheless, currently, the diagnosis of hiatal hernia can be easily established, based on barium swallow radiography. We would like to present a clinical case report of a patient with complex medical history, including von Willebrand disease, degenerative spinal disease, and chronic sinusitis, who was finally diagnosed with hiatal hernia and treated with a standard laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Our case focuses on the significance of comorbidities on patients' symptoms, which sometimes may mislead the therapeutic process.

[Prospective comparative study of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis].

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups ( P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups. Results: All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups ( P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation ( P>0.05). Conclusion: UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.

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.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of OLIF and TLIF in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the difference in clinical efficacy between two surgical approaches, oblique lateral approach and intervertebral foraminal approach, in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: English databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science, were systematically searched using keywords such as "oblique lumbar interbody fusion" and "transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion." Concurrently, Chinese databases, including CNKI, WanFang data, VIP, and CBM, were also queried using corresponding Chinese terms. The search spanned from January 2014 to February 2024, focusing on published studies in both Chinese and English that compared the clinical efficacy of OLIF and TLIF. The literature screening was conducted by reviewing titles, abstracts, and full texts. Literature meeting the inclusion criteria underwent quality assessment, and relevant data were extracted. Statistical analysis and a meta-analysis of the observational data for both surgical groups were performed using Excel and RevMan 5.4 software. Findings revealed a total of 14 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, encompassing 877 patients. Of these, 414 patients were in the OLIF group, while 463 were in the TLIF group. Meta-analysis of the statistical data revealed that compared to TLIF, OLIF had a shorter average surgical duration (P < 0.05), reduced intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.05), shorter average hospital stay (P < 0.05), better improvement in postoperative VAS scores (P < 0.05), superior enhancement in postoperative ODI scores (P < 0.05), more effective restoration of disc height (P < 0.05), and better correction of lumbar lordosis (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences between OLIF and TLIF in terms of the incidence of surgical complications (P > 0.05) and fusion rates (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: When treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, OLIF demonstrates significant advantages over TLIF in terms of shorter surgical duration, reduced intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stay, superior improvement in postoperative VAS and ODI scores, better restoration of disc height, and more effective correction of lumbar lordosis.

Surgical appropriateness nudges: Developing behavioral science nudges to integrate appropriateness criteria into the decision making of spine surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists in surgeon decision making. In response, multiple specialty societies have established criteria for the appropriate use of spine surgery. Yet few strategies exist to facilitate routine use of appropriateness criteria by surgeons. Behavioral science nudges are increasingly used to enhance decision making by clinicians. We sought to design "surgical appropriateness nudges" to support routine use of appropriateness criteria for degenerative lumbar scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. METHODS: The work reflected Stage I of the NIH Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development and involved an iterative, multi-method approach, emphasizing qualitative methods. Study sites included two large referral centers for spine surgery. We recruited spine surgeons from both sites for two rounds of focus groups. To produce preliminary nudge prototypes, we examined sources of variation in surgeon decision making (Focus Group 1) and synthesized existing knowledge of appropriateness criteria, behavioral science nudge frameworks, electronic tools, and the surgical workflow. We refined nudge prototypes via feedback from content experts, site leaders, and spine surgeons (Focus Group 2). Concurrently, we collected data on surgical practices and outcomes at study sites. We pilot tested the refined nudge prototypes among spine surgeons, and surveyed them about nudge applicability, acceptability, and feasibility (scale 1-5, 5 = strongly agree). RESULTS: Fifteen surgeons participated in focus groups, giving substantive input and feedback on nudge design. Refined nudge prototypes included: individualized surgeon score cards (frameworks: descriptive social norms/peer comparison/feedback), online calculators embedded in the EHR (decision aid/mapping), a multispecialty case conference (injunctive norms/social influence), and a preoperative check (reminders/ salience of information/ accountable justification). Two nudges (score cards, preop checks) incorporated data on surgeon practices and outcomes. Six surgeons pilot tested the refined nudges, and five completed the survey (83%). The overall mean score was 4.0 (standard deviation [SD] 0.5), with scores of 3.9 (SD 0.5) for applicability, 4.1 (SD 0.5) for acceptability, and 4.0 (SD 0.5), for feasibility. Conferences had the highest scores 4.3 (SD 0.6) and calculators the lowest 3.9 (SD 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral science nudges might be a promising strategy for facilitating incorporation of appropriateness criteria into the surgical workflow of spine surgeons. Future stages in intervention development will test whether these surgical appropriateness nudges can be implemented in practice and influence surgical decision making.

Risk factors for early-onset adjacent segment degeneration after one-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is a major postoperative complication associated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Early-onset ASD may differ pathologically from late-onset ASD. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for early-onset ASD at the cranial segment occurring within 2 years after surgery. A retrospective study was performed for 170 patients with L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent one-segment PLIF. Of these patients, 20.6% had early-onset ASD at L3-4. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, preoperative larger % slip, vertebral bone marrow edema at the cranial segment on preoperative MRI (odds ratio 16.8), and surgical disc space distraction (cut-off 4.0 mm) were significant independent risk factors for early-onset ASD. Patients with preoperative imaging findings of bone marrow edema at the cranial segment had a 57.1% rate of early-onset ASD. A vacuum phenomenon and/or concomitant decompression at the cranial segment, the degree of surgical reduction of slippage, and lumbosacral spinal alignment were not risk factors for early-onset ASD. The need for fusion surgery requires careful consideration if vertebral bone marrow edema at the cranial segment adjacent to the fusion segment is detected on preoperative MRI, due to the negative impact of this edema on the incidence of early-onset ASD.

Biomechanical response of decompression alone in lower grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis--A finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated the clinical efficacy of decompression alone in lower-grade spondylolisthesis. A higher rate of surgical revision and a lower rate of back pain relief was also observed. However, there is a lack of relevant biomechanical evidence after decompression alone for lower-grade spondylolisthesis. PURPOSE: Evaluating the biomechanical characteristics of total laminectomy, hemilaminectomy, and facetectomy for lower-grade spondylolisthesis by analyzing the range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure (IDP), annulus fibrosus stress (AFS), facet joints contact force (FJCF), and isthmus stress (IS). METHODS: Firstly, we utilized finite element tools to develop a normal lumbar model and subsequently constructed a spondylolisthesis model based on the normal model. We then performed total laminectomy, hemilaminectomy, and one-third facetectomy in the normal model and spondylolisthesis model, respectively. Finally, we analyzed parameters, such as ROM, IDP, AFS, FJCF, and IS, for all the models under the same concentrate force and moment. RESULTS: The intact spondylolisthesis model showed a significant increase in the relative parameters, including ROM, AFS, FJCF, and IS, compared to the intact normal lumbar model. Hemilaminectomy and one-third facetectomy in both spondylolisthesis and normal lumbar models did not result in an obvious change in ROM, IDP, AFS, FJCF, and IS compared to the pre-operative state. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the degree of parameter changes between the spondylolisthesis and normal lumbar models after undergoing the same surgical procedures. However, total laminectomy significantly increased ROM, AFS, and IS and decreased the FJCF in both normal lumbar models and spondylolisthesis models. CONCLUSION: Hemilaminectomy and one-third facetectomy did not have a significant impact on the segment stability of lower-grade spondylolisthesis; however, patients with LDS undergoing hemilaminectomy and one-third facetectomy may experience higher isthmus stress on the surgical side during rotation. In addition, total laminectomy changes the biomechanics in both normal lumbar models and spondylolisthesis models.

Effects of Cage Implantation Depth on Sagittal Parameters and Functional Outcomes in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of L4-L5 Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: In the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) with Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery, interbody fusion implants play a key role in supporting the vertebral body and facilitating fusion. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of implantation depth on sagittal parameters and functional outcomes in patients undergoing PLIF surgery. METHODS: This study reviewed 128 patients with L4-L5 LDS between January 2016 and August 2019. All patients underwent an open PLIF surgery that included intravertebral decompression, implantation of pedicle screws and cage. We grouped according to the position of the center of the cage relative to the L5 vertebral endplate. Patients with the center of the cage located at the anterior 1/2 of the upper end plate of the L5 vertebral body were divided into Anterior group, and located at the posterior 1/2 of the upper end plate of the L5 vertebral body were divided into Posterior group. The lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT) and slope degree (SD) was measured for radiographic outcomes. We used the visual analog scale (VAS) and the oswestry disability index (ODI) score to assess functional outcomes. Paired t-test was used to compare imaging and bedside data before and after surgery between the two groups, and independent sample t-test, χ2 test and Fisher exact test were used to compare the data between the two groups. RESULT: The mean follow-up of Anterior group was 44.13 ± 9.23 months, and Posterior group was 45.62 ± 10.29 months (P > 0.05). The LL, SL, PT, SS, SD and PI-LL after operation showed great improvements, relative to the corresponding preoperative values in both groups (P < 0.05). Compared to Posterior group, Anterior group exhibited far enhanced SL (15.49 ± 3.28 vs. 13.67 ± 2.53, P < 0.05), LL (53.47 ± 3.21 vs. 52.08 ± 3.15, P < 0.05) outcomes and showed depressed PI-LL (8.87 ± 5.05 vs. 10.73 ± 5.39, P < 0.05) outcomes at the final follow-up. Meanwhile, the SL in Anterior group (16.18 ± 3.99) 1 months after operation were also higher than in Posterior group (14.12 ± 3.57) (P < 0.05). We found that VAS and ODI at the final follow-up in Anterior group (3.62 ± 0.96, 25.19 ± 5.25) were significantly lower than those in Posterior group (4.12 ± 0.98, 27.68 ± 5.13) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LDS, the anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of SL after PLIF surgery. Meanwhile, the anteriorly placed cage may achieve better sagittal parameters of LL and PI-LL and functional outcomes at the final follow-up.

Differences in the surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis based on self-reported sex: analysis of the CSORN prospective DLS study.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) reliably improves patient-reported quality of life; however, patient population heterogeneity, in addition to other factors, ensures ongoing equipoise in choosing the ideal surgical treatment. Surgeon preference for fusion or decompression alone influences surgical treatment decision-making. Meanwhile, at presentation, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ considerably between females and males. The aims of this study were to determine whether there exists a difference in the rates of decompression and fusion versus decompression alone based on patient-reported sex, and to determine if widely accepted indications for fusion justify any observed differences or if surgeon preference plays a role. METHODS: This study is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) DLS study, a multicentered Canadian prospective study, investigating the surgical management and outcome of DLS. Decompression and fusion rates, patient characteristics, preoperative PROMs, and radiographic measures were compared between males and females before and after propensity score matching. RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, female patients were more likely to undergo decompression and fusion than male patients. Females were more likely to have the recognized indications for fusion, including kyphotic disc angle, higher spondylolisthesis grade and slip percentage, and patient-reported back pain. Other radiographic findings associated with the decision to fuse, including facet effusion, facet distraction, or facet angle, were not more prevalent in females. After propensity score matching for demographic and radiographic characteristics, similar proportions of male and female patients underwent decompression and fusion and decompression alone. CONCLUSIONS: Although it remains unclear who should or should not undergo fusion, in addition to surgical decompression of DLS, female patients undergo fusion at a higher rate than their male counterparts. After matching baseline radiographic factors indicating fusion, this analysis showed that the decision to fuse was not biased by sex differences. Rather, the higher proportion of females undergoing fusion is largely explained by the radiographic and clinical indications for fusion, suggesting that specific clinical and anatomical features of this condition are indeed different between sexes.

[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.

Clinical Efficacy of Unilateral Dual-channel Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Spinal Scoliosis.

OBJECTIVES: Scoliosis associated with spondylolisthesis is a common phenomenon. Recent research has reported that scoliosis can spontaneously disappear after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. Researchers have advocated that, for scoliosis associated with vertebral slippage, surgery for the latter may be the only necessary intervention, while unnecessary surgery for scoliosis should be avoided. So we propose that minimally invasive techniques can achieve treatment effects similar to those of open surgery. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of unilateral dual-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal scoliosis. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis and spinal scoliosis who underwent ULIF between September 2021 and September 2023. Measurements of the Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis (LL) angle, sacral slope (SS), slip percentage (SP), slip angle (SA), L1 plumb line-S1 distance (LASD), and average intervertebral height (AIH) were taken preoperatively, immediately following surgery, 3 months after surgery, and at the final follow-up. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring systems were used to assess clinical results. The surgical efficacy was evaluated by comparing these parameters before and after surgery. Comparison of indicators within the same group was conducted using one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance or paired sample t-tests, whereas between-group differences were compared using an independent t-test. RESULTS: This study included 31 individuals who underwent surgery and completed follow-up. The follow-up period did not show a significant loss of corrective angles. Furthermore, the Cobb angle, SP, SA, and LASD significantly decreased after surgery, whereas the LL angle, SS, and AIH significantly increased (all p < 0.05). SP did not differ between the immediate postoperative period and the 3-month and final follow-up periods (p > 0.05). However, other parameters significantly improved during the follow-up period at all time points, except from 3 months to the final follow-up period (p > 0.05). Throughout the follow-up period, the lower back and leg pain VAS, ODI, and JOA scores considerably improved compared with the preoperative levels (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ULIF effectively treated lumbar spondylolisthesis with scoliosis, thereby reducing the degree of slip and scoliosis. By performing surgical reduction, fusion, and fixation only on the slipped segment, ULIF also had a corrective effect on the spinal lateral curvature, thereby avoiding the need for unnecessary scoliosis surgery. Moreover, the short-term efficacy was satisfactory, but the long-term efficacy requires further study.

Management for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a network meta-analysis and systematic review basing on randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Consensus on the various interventions for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and major scientific websites until 01 November 2023, to screen eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the treatment of DLS. The seven most common DLS interventions [nonsurgical (NS), decompression only (DO), decompression plus fusion without internal fixation (DF), decompression plus fusion with internal fixation (DFI), endoscopic decompression plus fusion (EDF), endoscopic decompression (ED), and circumferential fusion (360F)] were compared. The primary (pain and disability) and secondary (complications, reoperation rate, operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction) outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Data involving 3273 patients in 16 RCTs comparing the efficacy of different interventions for DLS were reported. In terms of improving patient pain and dysfunction, there was a significant difference between surgical and NS. EDF showed the greatest improvement in short-term and long-term dysfunction (probability, 7.1 and 21.0%). Moreover, EDF had a higher complication rate (probability 70.8%), lower reoperation rate (probability, 20.2%), and caused greater blood loss (probability, 82.5%) than other surgical interventions. Endoscopic surgery had the shortest hospitalization time (EDF: probability, 42.6%; ED: probability, 3.9%). DF and DFI had the highest satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high complication rate of EDF, its advantages include improvement in pain, lower reoperation rate, and shorter hospitalization duration. Therefore, EDF may be a good option for patients with DLS as a less invasive surgical approach.

Long-term Outcome of Isobar TTL System for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: The Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system has demonstrated favorable outcomes in the short-term treatment of lumbar degenerative disc diseases (LDDs). However, there is a paucity of extensive research on the long-term effects of this system on LDDs. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with LDDs who underwent treatment utilizing the Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system. METHODS: The study analyzed the outcomes of 40 patients with LDDs who underwent posterior lumbar decompression and received single-segment Isobar TTL dynamic internal fixation at our hospital between June 2010 and December 2016. The evaluation of clinical therapeutic effect involved assessing postoperative pain levels using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), both before surgery, 3 months after, and the final follow-up. To determine the preservation of functional motion in dynamically stable segments, we measured the range of motion (ROM) and disc height of stabilized and adjacent segments preoperatively and during the final follow-up. Additionally, we investigated the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). RESULTS: Forty patients were evaluated, with an average age of 44.65 years and an average follow-up period of 79.37 months. Fourteen patients belonged to the spondylolisthesis group, while the remaining 26 were categorized under the stenosis or herniated disc group. The preoperative ROM of the stabilized segment exhibited a significant reduction from 8.15° ± 2.77° to 5.00° ± 1.82° at the final follow-up (p < 0.001). In contrast, there was a slight elevation in the ROM of the adjacent segment during the final follow-up, increasing from 7.68° ± 2.25° before surgery to 9.36° ± 1.98° (p < 0.001). The intervertebral space height (IH) in the stabilized segment exhibited a significant increase from 10.56 ± 1.99 mm before surgery to 11.39 ± 1.90 mm at the one-week postoperative follow-up (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was a notable decrease in the IH of the adjacent segment from 11.09 ± 1.82 mm preoperatively to 10.86 ± 1.79 mm at the one-week follow-up after surgery (p < 0.001). The incidence of ASD was 15% (6/40) after an average follow-up period of 79.37 months, with a rate of 15.38% (4/26) in the stenosis or herniated disc group and 14.29% (2/14) in the spondylolisthesis group; however, no statistically significant difference was observed in the occurrence of ASD among these groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system is an effective treatment for LDDs, improving pain relief, quality of life (QoL) and maintaining stabilized segmental motion. It has demonstrated excellent long-term clinical and radiographic results.

[Sagittal Profi le of the Spine in Patients after Lumbar Stabilisation Surgeries]. / Sagitální profi l pátere u pacientu po stabilizacních operacích bederní pátere.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Spine stabilization surgery is nowadays one of the most common spinal surgical procedures. Spinopelvic alignment is considered to be an important factor impacting the patients' preoperative diffi culties as well as the outcome of surgery. In our study, the outcomes of stabilization surgeries in patients with lumbar spine disorders were evaluated - especially in those with stenosis and spondylolisthesis, in whom the importance of sagittal parameters were assessed with respect to the patients' clinical outcomes and diffi culties. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 50 patients with lumbar spine disorders who had undergone a spine stabilization surgery for a degenerative disease - lumbar spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis between 2015 and 2017. Spino-pelvic radiological parameters and clinical parameters were evaluated using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and Wilcoxon tests. RESULTS: In 38 of 50 patients, who at the end of the follow-up period did not have the PI-LL (pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis) mismatch, i.e. PI-LL was ≤10°, a statistically signifi cant difference in pelvic tilt (p=0.049) and sagittal vertical axis (p<0.001) was reported, which was not the case in the remaining patients of the study population. Claudication and OSWESTRY (ODI) showed no statistically signifi cant difference. We have also compared the differences in the number of fused vertebrae and type of stabilization. A signifi cant change was seen in the claudication parameter at 12 and 24 months after surgery (p=0.007, p=0.005), with better outcomes achieved by 360° lumbar fusion compared to posterior lumbar fusion. The improvement of VAS and ODI scores in both the groups over time (from 6.1 to 3.6 or from 6.3 to 3.5 in VAS and from 62 to 32, or from 62 to 30 in ODI) was also statistically signifi cant (p<0.001 in both groups), while when comparing the groups against each other it was statistically insignifi cant. DISCUSSION: The authors confi rmed signifi cant improvement in the studied clinical parameters in all groups of patients (VAS, ODI, claudication), which is consistent with the results of recently published papers. The authors also established the correlation between different radiological parameters in the studied groups. The results do not confi rm the importance of the length or type of instrumentation for the clinical outcomes. This is consistent with the fi ndings of other published manuscripts. The authors failed to confi rm a signifi cant change in clinical parameters in dependence on the matching relationship between the pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis. CONCLUSIONS: Proper spinopelvic balance in patients after spinal surgery is a very important indicator of postoperative development and condition, but our cohort showed no statistically signifi cant difference in the clinical outcomes of patients whose postoperative sagittal parameters were unsatisfactory. KEY WORDS: sagittal profi le, spine stabilization, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, sagittal vertical axis, SVA.

Short-term and mid-term evaluation of three types of minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery for treatment of L4/L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

This was a single-centre retrospective study. Minimally invasive techniques for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) have been extensively used for lumbar degenerative diseases. The present study analyses the short-term and mid-term clinical effects of the above three minimally invasive techniques on L4/L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. In this retrospective study, 98 patients with L4/L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis received MIS-TLIF, 107 received OLIF, and 114 received Endo-TLIF. All patients were followed up for at least one year. We compared patient data, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale of low back pain (VAS-B), visual analogue scale of leg pain (VAS-L), surgical time, blood loss, drainage volume, hospital stay, complications, and neurological status. Moreover, we performed imaging evaluations, including lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), disc height (DH) and intervertebral fusion status. No significant differences were noted in age, sex, BMI, preoperative ODI, preoperative VAS-B, preoperative VAS-L, preoperative LLA, or preoperative DH. Patients who underwent OLIF had significantly decreased blood loss, a lower drainage volume, and a shorter hospital stay than those who underwent MIS-TLIF or Endo-TLIF (P < 0.05). The VAS-B in the OLIF group significantly decreased compared with in the MIS-TLIF and Endo-TLIF groups at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). The VAS-L in the Endo-TLIF group significantly decreased compared with that in the MIS-TLIF and OLIF groups at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). The ODI in the OLIF group was significantly better than that in the MIS-TLIF and Endo-TLIF groups at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in the incidence of complications and healthcare cost were found among the three groups. Follow-up LLA and DH changes were significantly lower in the OLIF group than in the other groups (P < 0.05). The intervertebral fusion rate was significantly higher in the OLIF group than in the other groups at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). In conclusion, while MIS-TLIF, OLIF, and Endo-TLIF techniques can effectively treat patients with L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis, OLIF has more benefits, including less operative blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, a smaller drainage volume, efficacy for back pain, effective maintenance of lumbar lordosis angle and disc height, and a higher fusion rate. OLIF should be the preferred surgical treatment for patients with L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

[Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for degree â degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis].

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degreeⅠdegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Methods: A clinical data of 58 patients with degreeⅠDLS who met the selection criteria between October 2021 and October 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 28 cases were treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (decompression group) and 30 cases with ULIF (ULIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) in the gender, age, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), disk height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and other baseline data. The operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ambulation time, VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, ODI, laboratory examination indexes (CRP, ESR), and imaging parameters (DH, SL) were compared between the two groups. Results: Compared with the ULIF group, the decompression group had shorter operation time, less postoperative drainage, and earlier ambulation ( P<0.05). All incisions healed by first intention, and no complication such as nerve root injury, epidural hematoma, or infection occurred. All patients were followed up 12 months. Laboratory tests showed that ESR and CRP at 3 days after operation in decompression group were not significantly different from those before operation ( P>0.05), while the above indexes in ULIF group significantly increased at 3 days after operation compared to preoperative values ( P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of ESR and CRP before and after operation between the two groups ( P<0.05). Except that the VAS score of low back pain at 3 days after operation was not significantly different from that before operation in decompression group ( P>0.05), there were significant differences in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points ( P<0.05). The VAS score of low back pain in ULIF group was significantly higher than that in decompression group at 3 days after operation ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). The ODI of the two groups significantly improved after operation ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 3 days and 6 months after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at the two time points after operation ( P<0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in DH and SL between pre-operation and 12 months after operation in decompression group ( P>0.05). However, the above two indexes in ULIF group were significantly higher than those before operation ( P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of DH and SL before and after operation between the two groups ( P<0.05). Conclusion: Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression can achieve good effectiveness in the treatment of degree Ⅰ DLS. Compared with ULIF, it can shorten operation time, reduce postoperative drainage volume, promote early ambulation, reduce inflammatory reaction, and accelerate postoperative recovery. ULIF has more advantages in restoring intervertebral DH and SL.

[Progress in treatment of high-grade spondylolisthesis].

Objective: To review the research progress in the treatment of high-grade spondylolisthesis (HS), in order to provide a reference for clinical treatment decision-making. Methods: The literature related to the treatment of HS at home and abroad in recent years was widely reviewed. The methods of conservative treatment, in situ fusion, and spondylolisthesis reduction were analyzed and summarized. Results: Surgical treatment is the main treatment of HS, but which method is the best is still controversial. The advantages, disadvantages, and applicability of various operations are also different, so individualized analysis is needed in clinic. Conclusion: The treatment plan of HS needs to be considered comprehensively according to the individual condition of the patient. It will be an important research direction to further compare the existing treatment methods and develop more safe and effective new technology.

The clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis classification and its predictive value.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification is a new classification that has been introduced for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). It has four categories. Our study aimed to analyse the functional and radiographic outcome following DS surgery based on the preoperative CARDS classification. METHODS: A retrospective study of the prospectively collected Australian Spine Registry database was performed. Data on demographics, patient reported outcome measures including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EQ-5D-3 L scores, and changes in radiographic measurements were analysed. Based on the preoperative findings all x-rays were classified applying the CARDS classification. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2021 a total of 54-patients were identified as having had surgery for DS at L4/5. The mean age was 65.3 ± 11.3years and females were predominantly affected (61%). Most cases were of CARDS type C (46%), followed by type B (29%). CARDS type A and D were observed in 18% and 6% respectively. Preoperatively, the L4/5 lordosis was 19.8 ± 6.3° and lumbar lordosis 43.9 ± 12.8°. Postoperatively the L4/5 lordosis alignment changed significantly to 23.5 ± 8.8° (p < 0.05). Preoperatively, the CARDS classification was 34.8 ± 17.4 (type A), 40.5 ± 11.0 (type B), 43.8 ± 12.9 and 50.0 ± 14.4 for type D (Pearson-coefficient 0.284, p = 0.041). Postoperatively this changed to 22.7 ± 16.1, 28.7 ± 21.2, 12.5 ± 13.1, and 6.5 ± 2.1 respectively. Similar improvements were observed for the EQ-5D-3 L. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the CARDS classification correlates with preoperative functional scores as well as helping to predict response to surgery. CARDS will likely assist in operative planning and prognostication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, therapeutic and prognostic study.

Risk of Subsequent Fusion After Isolated Decompression of Lumbar Facet Cysts.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar facet cysts represent a potential source of nerve root compression in elderly patients. Isolated decompression without fusion has proven to be a reasonable treatment option in properly indicated patients. However, the risk of lumbar fusion after isolated decompression and facet cyst excision has yet to be elucidated. METHODS: The PearlDiver database was reviewed for patients undergoing isolated laminectomy for lumbar facet cyst from January 2015 to December 2018 using Current Procedural Terminology coding. Patients undergoing concomitant fusion or additional decompression, as well as those diagnosed with preexisting spondylolisthesis or without a minimum of 5-year follow-up, were excluded. Rates of subsequent lumbar fusion and potential risk factors for subsequent fusion were identified. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, chi square test, and multivariate logistic regression. Results were considered significant at P < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 10,707 patients were ultimately included for analysis. At 5-year follow-up, 727 (6.79%) of patients underwent subsequent lumbar fusion after initial isolated decompression. Of these, 301 (2.81% of total patients, 41.4% of fusion patients) underwent fusion within the first year after decompression. Multivariate analysis identified chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and osteoarthritis as risk factors for requiring subsequent lumbar fusion at 5 years following the index decompression procedure ( P < 0.033; all). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing isolated decompression for lumbar facet cysts undergo subsequent lumbar fusion at a 5-year rate of 6.79%. Risk factors for subsequent decompression include chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. This study will assist spine surgeons in appropriately counseling patients on expected postoperative course and potential risks of isolated decompression.