Abstract
Purpose
A retrospective cohort study was performed to evaluate pseudoarthrosis treatment results by injection of cement in disc space of failed fusion in posterior lumbar interbody fusion in patients above 65 years.
Methods
Forty-five patients above 65 years with symptomatic pseudarthrosis after lumbar spine fusion were treated by cement injection in the affected disc space.
Results
There were 30 females and 15 males. The mean age at the operation was 74 ± 6.5 years (range 65–89). Discoplasty was performed after the primary fusion operations after a mean of 14 ± 1.3 months (range 12–24). The mean preoperative VAS was 7.5 (range 6–9), and ODI was 36 (range 30–45). Cement injection was done at one level in most of the cases (35 patients). In seven cases, two injection levels were done, and in three cases, three levels. Twenty-three patients had discoplasty only, while 22 had discoplasty and screws change, including 14 cases of extension of the instrumentation. The mean postoperative follow-up was 32 ± 6.5 months. The VAS improved to 3.5 (range 2–5) (p = 0.02) and ODI to 12.3 (range 5–35) (p = 0.001). Reoperation was indicated in two (4%) patients by screws loosening. Asymptomatic cement leakage occurred in the paravertebral space in seven cases (15.5%).
Conclusion
Cement discoplasty offers a less invasive reliable surgical solution in elderly patients with symptomatic lumbar pseudarthrosis in the elderly patients. In cases with screw loosening, discoplasty should be combined with screw revision.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Sharing is possible only after approval from Research Committee of our hospital.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Chun DS, Baker KC, Hsu WK (2015) Lumbar pseudarthrosis: a review of current diagnosis and treatment. Neurosurg Focus 39:E10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15292
Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI et al (2010) Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 303:1259–1265. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.2010.338
Gologorsky Y, Knightly JJ, Chi JH, Groff MW (2014) The nationwide inpatient sample database does not accurately reflect surgical indications for fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 21:984–993. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.8.SPINE131113
Said E, Abdel-Wanis ME, Ameen M et al (2021) Posterolateral fusion versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Glob Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682211016426
Aono H, Takenaka S, Nagamoto Y et al (2018) Fusion rate and clinical outcomes in two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 112:e473–e478. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2018.01.062
Hofler RC, Swong K, Martin B et al (2018) Risk of Pseudoarthrosis after spinal fusion: analysis from the healthcare cost and utilization project. World Neurosurg 120:e194–e202. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2018.08.026
Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN et al (2004) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine 29:726–733. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000119398.22620.92
Kobayashi K, Ando K, Kato F et al (2018) Reoperation within 2 years after lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study. Eur Spine J 27:1972–1980. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00586-018-5508-1
Sola C, Camino Willhuber G, Kido G et al (2021) Percutaneous cement discoplasty for the treatment of advanced degenerative disk disease in elderly patients. Eur Spine J 30:2200–2208. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00586-018-5547-7
Kiss L, Varga PP, Szoverfi Z et al (2019) Indirect foraminal decompression and improvement in the lumbar alignment after percutaneous cement discoplasty. Eur Spine J 28:1441–1447. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00586-019-05966-7
Yang L, Kong J, Qiu Z et al (2020) Mineralized collagen-modified PMMA cement enhances bone integration and reduces fibrous encapsulation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Regen Biomater 7:181–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/RB/RBZ044
Johnston MC, Crilly M, Black C et al (2019) Defining and measuring multimorbidity: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Eur J Public Health 29:182–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURPUB/CKY098
Hoshide R, Feldman E, Taylor W (2016) Cadaveric analysis of the kambin’s triangle. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/CUREUS.475
Yoo JS, Patel DV, Mayo BC et al (2019) Postoperative satisfaction following lumbar spinal fusion surgery: patient expectation versus actuality. J Neurosurg Spine 31:676–682. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.5.SPINE19213
Acosta FL, Cloyd JM, Aryan HE, Ames CP (2009) Patient satisfaction and radiographic outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion without iliac crest bone graft or transverse process fusion. J Clin Neurosci 16:1184–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOCN.2008.12.006
Etminan M, Girardi FP, Khan SN, Cammisa FP (2002) Revision strategies for lumbar pseudarthrosis. Orthop Clin North Am 33:381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(02)00005-6
Saleh A, Thirukumaran C, Mesfin A, Molinari RW (2017) Complications and readmission after lumbar spine surgery in elderly patients: an analysis of 2320 patients. Spine J 17:1106–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPINEE.2017.03.019
Santos ERG, Pinto MR, Lonstein JE et al (2008) Revision lumbar arthrodesis for the treatment of lumbar cage pseudoarthrosis: complications. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:418–421. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0B013E3181573CB3
Adogwa O, Owens R, Karikari I et al (2013) Revision lumbar surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis, adjacent-segment disease, or same-level recurrent stenosis. part 2. a cost-effectiveness analysis: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 18:147–153. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.11.SPINE12226
Suh SP, Jo YH, Jeong HW et al (2017) Outcomes of revision surgery following instrumented posterolateral fusion in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative analysis between pseudarthrosis and adjacent segment disease. Asian Spine J 11:463–471. https://doi.org/10.4184/ASJ.2017.11.3.463
Dede O, Thuillier D, Pekmezci M et al (2015) Revision surgery for lumbar pseudarthrosis. Spine J 15:977–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPINEE.2013.05.039
Ondra SL, Marzouk S (2003) Revision strategies for lumbar pseudarthrosis. Neurosurg Focus. https://doi.org/10.3171/FOC.2003.15.3.9
Do JG, Kwon JW, Kim SJ (2020) Effectiveness of percutaneous cement injection on proximal junctional failure after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: preliminary study. Med. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000018682
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for publication
Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing non-identifying data and photographs.
Ethical approval
This research study was conducted retrospectively from data obtained for clinical purposes. We consulted extensively with the Research Ethics Committee of our hospital who determined that our study did not need ethical approval.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alkharsawi, M., Shousha, M., Boehm, H. et al. Cement discoplasty for managing lumbar spine pseudarthrosis in elderly patients: a less invasive alternative approach for failed posterior lumbar spine interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 31, 1728–1735 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07186-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07186-y