PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Objectives
To verify the advantages of adding gentle reduction and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), using a cage to the usual posterolateral fusion (PLF), with pedicle screw instrumentation, in the surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with isthmic spondylolisthesis.
Summary of Literature Review
The stabilization of isthmic spondylolisthesis, following decompression, is difficult. The PLIF, with a cage, offers anterior column support, reduction and a broad fusion base.
Materials and Methods
31patients were treated with wide decompression, pedicle screws fixation, PLF and PLIF, and followed up for more than 1 year. The degrees of slippage were grades I and II in 20 and 11 patients, respectively. The grade I patients were treated with gentle reduction of the slippage in the disc space, using a leverage maneuver with a Cobb's spinal elevator. The grade II patients were treated with the insertion of a pedicle screws, fixation of rods, reduction and distraction, and then insertion of a cage. A fter the procedure all the patients were evaluated for the reduction of spondylolisthesis, restoration of the disc space, radiological bony union and clinical results.
Results
Ninety percent of the patients were rated as excellent or good. Fusion of the PLIF occurred in all patients. The average reduction in the spondylolisthesis was 42.6 and 47.8% in the grade I and II patients, respectively. The average restorations of the disc spaces were 46.9 and 100.2% in the grade I and II patients, respectively. The maintenance of the reduction and disc height were excellent in the final follow- up radiographs.
Conclusions
A dding gentle reduction and PLIF, using a cage, to the usual posterolateral fusion, with pedicle screw instrumentation, in the surgical treatment of spinal stenosis, with isthmic spondylolisthesis, showed satisfactory results in the reduction of the spondylolisthesis, the restoration of the disc height, the bony union and clinically.
REFERENCES
1). Chae IJ., Seo SW., Lim DJ. Operative treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis using Steffee VSP and cut pedi -cle screw: J. Kor Spine Surg. 6:407–414. 1999.
2). Chung JY., Chung GH., Kim HS. The result of poste -rior lumbar interbody fusion with transpedicular instru -mentation for the lumbar disease: J. Kor Spine Surg. 3:25–32. 1996.
3). Chung JY., Seo HY., Kim JS. The result & affecting factors of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with TPM cages in spondylolisthesis: J. Kor Spine Surg. 7:586–596. 2000.
4). Cloward RB. The Treatment of Ruptured Intervertebral Disc by Vertebral Body Fusion. Indications, Operative Techniques and Aftercare. J Neurosurgery,. 10:154. 1953.
5). Edwards CC., Bradford DS. Controversies instru -mented reduction of spondylolisthesis. Spine,. 19(13):1535–1537. 1994.
6). Enker P., Steffee AD. Interbody fusion and instru -mentation. Clin Orthop,. 300:90–101. 1994.
7). Garfin SR. Summation. Spine,. 19(20S):2300S–2305S. 1994.
8). Goh JC., Wong HK., Thambyah A., Yu CS. Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbar spine stability. Spine,. 25(1):35–9. 2000.
9). Harms J. Cage interbody fusion with pedicle screw sys -tem. Personal communication,. 1999.
10). Keppler L., Steffee AD., Biscup RS. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with variable screw placement and Isola instrumentation. Bridwell KH, Dewald RL, editors. The Textbook of Spinal Surgery. 2nd ed.Philadelphia: Lippin -cott-Raven;p. 1602. 1997.
11). Kirkaldy-Willis WH., Paine KWE., Cauchoix J., McIvor G. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop,. 99:30–52. 1974.
12). Lin PM., Cautilli BA., Joice MF. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop,. 180:154–168. 1983.
13). Louis R. Fusion of the lumbar and sacral spine by internal fusion with screw plates. Clin Orthop,. 203:18–23. 1986.
14). McAffee PC. Biomechanical evaluation of posterior of spinal stabilization methods for lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis. Presented at the annual meeting of America Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 8,. 1990.
15). McAffee PC. Current concept review-Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operation on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg,. 81-A:859–880. 1999.
16). McGuire RA., Amundson GM. The use of primary internal fixation in spondylolisthesis. Spine,. 18(12):1662–1672. 1993.
17). Schlegel KF., Pon A. Biomechanincs of posterior lum -bar interbody fusion in spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop,. 193:115–119. 1985.
18). Shin BJ., Min KD., Kwon H., Lee BI., Kim YI., Rah SK., Choi CU. Surgical result of isthmic spondylolisthe -sis: J. Kor Spine Surg. 3:61–68. 1996.
19). Steffee AD., Sitkowski DJ. Posterior lumbar inter -body fusion and plates, Clin Orthop,. 227:99–102. 1988.
20). Suk SI., Lee CK., Kim WJ., Kim HG. Adding posteri -or lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: J. Kor Orthop. 30:1638–1646. 1995.
21). Thomsen K., Christensen FB., Eiskjaer SP., Hansen ES., Fruensgaard S., Bunger CE. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: A prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine,. 22(24):2813–2822. 1997.
22). Weiner BK., Fraster RD. Spine update lumbar inter -body cages. Spine,. 23:634–740. 1998.
23). Wiltse LL., Neuman PH., Macnab I. Classification of spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop,. 117:23–29. 1976.
24). Wong HK., Goh JC., Goh PS. Paired cylindrical interbody cage fit and facetectomy in posterior lumbar interbody fusion in an Asian population. Spine, 1;. 26(5):672–7. 2001.
Fig. 1.
Preoperative flexion-extension lateral radiographs of 59-year-old female shows grade II isthmic spondylolisthesis at L4-5 level.
Fig. 2.
Magnetic resonance imaging in sagittal plane shows angulated and compressed dural sac and severely compressed nerve root at L4-5 intervertebral foramen.
XML Download