Journal List > J Korean Soc Spine Surg > v.15(3) > 1035809

Lee, Sohn, Lee, and Wang: Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Disease after Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion

Abstract

Study Design

This is a retrospective study.

Objective

We wanted to analyze the treatment outcome and the risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion.

Summary of Literature Review

Biomechanical alterations likely play a primary role in causing adjacent segment disease. Radiographically apparent, asymptomatic adjacent segment disease is common after lumbar fusion, but this does not correlate with the functional outcomes.

Materials and Methods

We reviewed 544 patients who underwent lumbar fusion at a minimum of 5-year follow-up between March 1993 and August 2006. Risk factors analysis was performed for 48 of 544 patients with adjacent segment disease and who were needed a second operation, and the treatment outcomes were assessed for 46 patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up after the second operation. The average interval to the second operation was 4.5 years, and the average follow-up after the second operation was 34.5 months. The treatment outcome was assessed by using the modified Brodsky criteria and the reoperation rate was assessed in relation to several risk factors.

Results

Excellent and good operative results were obtained in 29 cases (63%) and bony fusion was achieved in 41 cases (89%). Of the risk factors we examined, multi-level fusion, a high grade of initial radiographic degeneration, the loss of physiologic lumbar lordosis and the involvement of degenerative scoliosis were associated with a high reoperation rate, with statistical significance. Age, gender, the initial diagnosis, the upper placement of the proximal screws and the extent to the sacrum were not correlated with the reoperation rate.

Conclusion

The treatment outcome was relatively satisfactory; however, the factors influencing the treatment outcome of the second operation still need to be considered. The fusion level, the initial radiographic degeneration, the preservation of lumbar lordosis and the involvement of degenerative scoliosis are considered to be risk factors for the failure of lumbar fusion.

REFERENCES

1). Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S. Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord. 1995; 8:464–473.
crossref
2). Fritsch EW, Heisel J, Rupp S. The failed back surgery syndrome: reasons, intraoperative findings, and long-term results: a report of 182 operative treatments. Spine. 1996; 21:626–633.
3). Frymoyer JW, Hanley E, Howe J, Kuhlmann D, Matteri R. A comparison of radiolographic findings in fusion and nonfusion patients ten or more years following lumbar disc surgery. Spine. 1979; 4:435–440.
4). Guigui P, Lambert P, Lassale B, Deburge A. Long-term outcome at adjacent levels of lumbar arthrodesis. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1997; 83:685–696.
5). Ha KY, Sung TP. Changes of the adjacent mobile segment after cat spine fixation. J Kor Orthop Surg. 1997; 32:1808–1816.
crossref
6). Ha KY, Moon MS, Paek SY. Effect of Instumental stabilization and fusion of degenerative lumbar scoliosis on? unfused adjacent segment. J Kor Spine Surg. 1995; 2:270–278.
7). Kumar MN, Jacquot F, Hall H. Long-term follow up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J. 2001; 10:309–313.
8). Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine. 1987; 12:97–104.
crossref
9). Rahm MD, Hall BB. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation: A retrospective study. J Spinal Disord. 1996; 9:392–400.
10). Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL. Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine. 1996; 21:970–981.
crossref
11). Etebar S, Cahill DW. Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg. 1999; 90:163–169.
crossref
12). Kim SS, Michelsen CB. Revision surgery for failed back surgery syndrome. Spine. 1992; 17:957–960.
crossref
13). Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between saggital plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J. 2001; 10:314–319.
14). Lee CK, Langrana NA. Lumbosacral spinal fusion. A biomechanical study. Spine. 1984; 9:574–581.
crossref
15). Bastian L, Lange U, Knop C, Tusch G, Blauth M. Evaluation of the mobility of adjacent segments after posterior thoracolumbar fixation: A biomechanical study. Eur Spine J. 2001; 10:295–300.
crossref
16). Frymoyer JW, Hanley E, Howe J, Kuhlmann D, Matteri R. Disc excision and spine fusion in the management of lumbar disc disease. A minimum 10 year follow up. Spine. 1978; 13:1–6.
17). Hambly MF, Wiltse LL, Raghavan N, Schneiderman G, Koenig C. The transition zone above a lumbosacral fusion. Spine. 1998; 23:1785–1792.
crossref
18). Whitecloud TS, Davis JM, Olive PM. Operative treatment of the degenerated segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine. 1994; 19:531–536.
crossref
19). Morgan FP, King T. Primary instability of lumbar vertebrae as a common cause of low back pain. J Bone Joint Surg. 1957; 39:6–22.
crossref
20). Dupuis PR, Yong-Hing K, Cassidy JD, Kirkaldy-Willis WH. Radiologic diagnosis of degenerative lumbar spinal instability. Spine. 1985; 10:262–276.
crossref
21). Ha KY, Schendel MJ, Lewis JL, Ogilvie JW. Effect of immobilization and configuration on lumbar adjacent segment biomechanics. J Spinal Disord. 1993; 6:99–105.
22). Brunet JA, Wiley JJ. Acquired spondylolysis after spinal fusion. J Bone and Joint Surg. 1984; 66:720–724.
crossref
23). Ha KY, Kim KY, Park SJ, Lee YH. Changes of the adjacent-unfused mobile segment after instrumental lumbar fusion. More than 5 years follow-up. J Kor Spine Surg. 1998; 5:205–214.
24). Chen WJ, Lai PL, Niu CC, Chen LH, Fu TS, Wong CB. Surgical treatment of adjacent instability after lumbar spine fusion. Spine. 2001; 26:519–524.
crossref
25). Hue KY, Zucherman J, White A, et al. Deterioration of motion segments adjacent to lumbar fusions. Annual meeting of North American Spine Society, Colorado Springs, Colorado. 1998.
26). Shahin E, David W. Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg. 1999; 90:163–169.
27). Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Haid C, Claes L. Effects of specimen length on the monosegmental motion behaviour of the lumbar spine. Spine. 2000; 25:543–550.
28). Rohlman A, Neller S, Bergmann G, Graichen F, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Effect of an internal fixator and a bone graft on intersegmental spinal motion and intradiscal pressure in the adjacent regions. Eur Spine J. 2001; 10:301–308.
crossref
29). Cho JL, Park YS, Han JH, Lee CH, Roh WI. The changes of adjacent segments after spinal fusion. J Korean Spine Surg. 1998; 5:239–246.
30). Ha KY, Kim YH, Kang KS. Surgery for adjacent segment changes after lumbosacral fusion. J Kor Spine Surg. 2002; 9:332–340.
crossref
31). Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segment after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003; 16:338–345.

Fig. 1.
Posterolateral fusion with instrumentation at L3-4-5 in a 62 year-old male patient. (A) Postoperative 2 years, plain radiographs show both upper and lower adjacent degenerative changes. (B) Extended posterior decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion were performed. At the last follow-up, clinical result was good according to the modified Brodsky's criteria.
jkss-15-174f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Posterolateral fusion with instrumentation at L4-5-S1 in a 69 year-old female patient. (A) Postoperative 10 years, plain radiographs show degenerative lumbar scoliotic change about 13 degrees at AP view and adjacent degenerative changes at saggital view. S1 pedicle screw was broken. (B) T2-weight axial MR images show central and lateral recess type stenosis at L2-3 and L3-4. (C) Dynamic radiographs show L3-4 adjacent instability. (D) Metal removal and posterior decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion were performed. At the last follow-up, clinical result was excellent according to the modified Brodsky's criteria.
jkss-15-174f2.tif
Fig. 3.
A 64 year-old female radiographs. (A) Initial radiographs show multiple osteophytes and disc space narrowing with mild scoliotic change at L3-4-5. (B) Posterior decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion were performed. Kellgren grade II degeneration and joint space widening were noted at L2-3 on immediate postoperative radiographs. (C) At postoperative 3 years, severe endplate degeneration, disc collapse and advanced scoliosis were noted at L2-3. (D) Computerized axial tomography images show central and lateral recess type stenosis at L1-2-3. (E) Extended posterior decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion were performed. (F) At the last follow-up, radiographs show bone union and the clinical result was good according to the modified Brodsky's criteria.
jkss-15-174f3.tif
Table 1.
Radiologic grading of adjacent segment degeneration (prior to primary surgery)
Kellgren Grade 1: Minimal osteophytosis only
2: Definite osteophytosis with some sclerosis of anterior part of vertebral plates
3: Marked osteophytosis and sclerosis of vertebral plates with slight narrowing of disc space
4: Large osteophytosis, marked sclerosis of vertebral plates and marked narrowing of disc space
Table 2.
Modified Brodsky's criteria
Designation Criterion
Excellent No pain
Good Occasional back or leg pain
  No change of work
  No change of leisure activity
Fair Frequent back or leg pain
  Some change of work
  Some change of leisure activity
Poor Disabling pain
  Long-term medication
  Unable to work
Table 3.
Cause and location of adjacent segmental disease at second operation
Cause Nubmer (n) Percentage (%)
Stenosis 27 56.3
Instability 09 18.7
Stenosis and instability 11 22.9
Far lateral HNP 01 02.1
Location Number (n) Percentage (%)
Upper segment 37 77.1
Lower segment 08 16.7
Upper and lower segment 3 6.2

HNP; herniated nucleus purposus

Table 4.
Clinical result of second operation for adjacent segment disease
Modified Brodsky's criteria Excellent Good Poor Fair
Number (n) 10 19 11 06
Percentage (%) 22 41 24 13
Table 5.
Rate of reoperation related to risk factors
Risk factors Rate of reoperation P
Number (n) Percentage (%)
Sex      
Female 28/342 8.2  
Male 20/202 9.9 0.496
Age      
<50 years 13/132 9.8 0.633
≥50 years 35/412 8.5  
Initial diagnosis      
Spinal stenosis 38/432 8.8  
Degenerative spondylolisthesis 8/83 9.4 1.000
Dynamic instability 2/23 8.7  
Recurred HNP∗∗ 0/4 0.0  
Adjacent segment degeneration∗∗      
Kellgren grade < II 18/502 3.6  
Kellgren grade ≥ III 30/42 71.40 <0.001<
Number of fusion segment      
<2 segments 10/378 2.6  
≥3 segments 38/166 22.90 <0.001<
Preservation of lumbar lordosis∗∗∗      
≥35 degree 30/224 13.40 0.002
<35 degree 18/320 5.6  
Type of fusion      
Floating fusion 34/364 9.3 0.545
Extended to sacrum 14/180 7.8  
Upper placement of proximal screw 5/40 12.50 0.564
Associated with lumbar scoliosis 10/15 66.70 <0.001

HNP; herniated nucleus purposus

∗∗ Prior to primary surgery

∗∗∗ Posterior to primary surgery

TOOLS
Similar articles