Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Circumferential fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis complicated by distal junctional grade 4 spondylolisthesis in the sub-acute post-operative setting

European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Surgical management for lumbar stenosis is generally safe and provides significant improvements in pain, disability, and function. Successful lumbar decompression hinges on removing an appropriate amount of lamina and other compressive pathology in the lateral recess. Too little bony decompression can result in persistent pain and disability, while over resection of the pars and/or facets may jeopardize spinal stability.

Case report

In this unique report, we present for the first time an acute iatrogenic grade 4 L5–S1 spondylolisthesis distal to a L3–5 laminectomy and circumferential instrumented fusion due to bilateral iatrogenic L5 pars fractures and its management and clinical outcomes after revision operation. The patient presented with worsening pain, neurologic compromise, and severe sagittal imbalance. The iatrogenic, high-grade spondylolisthesis was urgently addressed with a L5–S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion and extension of posterior instrumentation to the pelvis, which resulted in considerable pain relief, resolution of neurologic deficits, and reconstitution of acceptable sagittal imbalance.

Conclusion

All attempts during a lumbar decompression should be made to prevent iatrogenic pars fractures, as they may result in severe sagittal imbalance, neurologic compromise, and persistent disability. Iatrogenic, high-grade L5–S1 spondylolisthesis can be successfully treated with reduction using circumferential fusion of the lumbosacral junction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD et al (2010) Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1329–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD et al (2007) Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 356:2257–2270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD et al (2009) Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91:1295–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rihn J, Hilibrand A, Zhao W et al (2015) Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis in the octogenarian population: analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) data. J Bone Jt Surg Am 97:177–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler W et al (2016) Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 374:1424–1434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Haher TR, O’Brien M, Dryer JW et al (1994) The role of the lumbar facet joints in spinal stability. Identification of alternative paths of loading. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:2667–2670 (discussion 2671)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee KK, Teo EC (2004) Effects of laminectomy and facetectomy on the stability of the lumbar motion segment. Med Eng Phys 26:183–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Klöckner C, Bergmann G (2003) Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics. Eur Spine J 12:427–434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Weiner BK, Walker M, Wiley W, McCulloch JA (2002) The lateral buttress: an anatomic feature of the lumbar pars interarticularis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:E385–E387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ebraheim NA, Lu J, Hao Y et al (1997) Anatomic considerations of the lumbar isthmus. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:941–945

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brunet J, Wiley J (1984) Acquired spondylolysis after spinal fusion. J Bone Jt Surg Br 66:720–724

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Harroud A, Labelle H, Joncas J, Mac-Thiong JM (2013) Global sagittal alignment and health-related quality of life in lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 22:849–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tanguay F, Labelle H, Wang Z et al (2012) Clinical significance of lumbosacral kyphosis in adolescent spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:304–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tanguay F, Mac-Thiong JM, Wang Z et al (2010) Developmental spondylolisthesis: is slip angle related to quality of life? Stud Health Technol Inform 158:182–185

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Labelle H, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E et al (2005) The importance of spino-pelvic balance in L5–S1 developmental spondylolisthesis: a review of pertinent radiologic measurements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:S27–S34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hresko MT, Labelle H, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E (2007) Classification of high-grade spondylolistheses based on pelvic version and spine balance. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2208–2213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boachie-Adjei O, Do T, Rawlins BA (2002) Partial lumbosacral kyphosis reduction, decompression, and posterior lumbosacral transfixation in high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis: clinical and radiographic results in six patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:E161–E168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bradford DS, Boachie-Adjei O (1990) Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by anterior and posterior reduction and stabilization. A long-term follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 72:1060–1066

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Poussa M, Remes V, Lamberg T et al (2006) Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis in adolescence with reduction or fusion in situ: long-term clinical, radiologic, and functional outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:583–590 (discussion 591–2)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith J, Deviren V, Berven S et al (2001) Clinical outcome of trans-sacral interbody fusion after partial reduction for high-grade L5–S1 spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:2227–2234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Glassman SD et al (2013) Clinical and radiographic parameters that distinguish between the best and worst outcomes of scoliosis surgery for adults. Eur Spine J 22:402–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Abtahi A, Brodke D, Lawrence B et al (2015) Association between patient-reported measures of psychological distress and patient satisfaction scores after spine surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Am 97:824–828

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN et al (2012) Preoperative Zung Depression Scale predicts outcome after revision lumbar surgery for adjacent segment disease, recurrent stenosis, and pseudarthrosis. Spine J 12:179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Daubs MD, Norvell DC, McGuire R et al (2011) Fusion versus nonoperative care for chronic low back pain: do psychological factors affect outcomes? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:S96–S109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Miller JA, Derakhshan A, Lubelski D et al (2015) The impact of preoperative depression on quality of life outcomes after lumbar surgery. Spine J 15:58–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Alvin MD, Miller JA, Sundar S et al (2015) The impact of preoperative depression on quality of life outcomes after posterior cervical fusion. Spine J 15:79–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Anderson JT, Haas AR, Percy R et al (2015) Clinical depression is a strong predictor of poor lumbar fusion outcomes among workers’ compensation subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:748–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vialle E, de Oliveira Pinto BM, Vialle LR, Gomez JDC (2015) Evaluation of psychosomatic distress and its influence in the outcomes of lumbar fusion procedures for degenerative disorders of the spine. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25 (Suppl 1):S25–S28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander A. Theologis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Ames is a consultant for Stryker, Medtronic, and Depuy. He has a patent with Fish & Richardson, P.C. He receives royalties from Stryker and Biomet Spine. Dr. Pekmezci has received a grant from Nuvasive unrelated to this study. Dr. Theologis has received a grant from Depuy-Synthes unrelated to this stuy. He and the remaining authors have no other conflicts of interest or financial ties.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Theologis, A.A., Jain, D., Ames, C.P. et al. Circumferential fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis complicated by distal junctional grade 4 spondylolisthesis in the sub-acute post-operative setting. Eur Spine J 26, 3075–3081 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-4976-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-4976-z

Keywords

Navigation