Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 12, pp 2152–2158 | Cite as

Disc height reduction in adjacent segments and clinical outcome 10 years after lumbar 360° fusion

  • Tobias L. SchulteEmail author
  • Freek Leistra
  • Viola Bullmann
  • Nani Osada
  • Volker Vieth
  • Björn Marquardt
  • Thomas Lerner
  • Ulf Liljenqvist
  • Lars Hackenberg
Original Article

Abstract

Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is discussed to impair long-term outcome after lumbar interbody fusion. Nevertheless the amount and origin of degeneration and its clinical relevance remain unclear. Only little data is published studying quantitative disc height reduction (DHR) as indicator for ASD in long-term follow-up. Forty patients (23 men, 17 women) (group 1: degenerative disc disease, n = 27; group 2: lytic spondylolisthesis, n = 13) underwent lumbar 360° instrumentation and fusion between 1991 and 1997. Preoperative and follow-up lateral lumbar radiographs were studied. Disc heights of first and second cephalad adjacent segments were measured by Farfan’s technique and Hurxthal’s technique modified by Pope. Clinical outcome was studied using Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Age, gender, prior surgery, fusion rate and number of fusion levels were investigated as potential factors affecting the outcome. Mean follow-up was 114 (72–161) months. Clinical outcome showed an improvement of 44.6% in ODI and 43.8% in VAS with a tendency towards better results in group 2. Fusion rate was 95%. Disc height of the first cephalad adjacent segment in all patients was reduced by on average 21% (Farfan, P < 0.001) and 19% (Pope, P < 0.001), respectively, and that of the second adjacent level by on average 16% (Farfan, P < 0.001) and 14% (Pope, P < 0.001), respectively. A tendency towards more disc height reduction (DHR) in the degenerative group was observed. Advanced age correlated with advanced DHR (P ≤ 0.003, r = 0.5). Multiple level fusion led to a more pronounced DHR than 1-level fusion (P = 0.028). There was a tendency towards more DHR in the first adjacent disc compared to the second. Gender, prior surgery of the fused segment and fusion level did not affect the amount of DHR. There was no correlation between the clinical outcome and DHR. Lumbar fusion is associated with DHR of adjacent discs. This may be induced by additional biomechanical stress, ongoing degeneration affecting the lumbar spine and advancing age. However, clinical outcome is not correlated with adjacent DHR.

Keywords

Adjacent segment Lumbar fusion Disc height Clinical outcome Disc degeneration 

References

  1. 1.
    Berlemann U, Gries NC, Moore RJ (1998) The relationship between height, shape and histological changes in early degeneration of the lower lumbar discs. Eur Spine J 7:212–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine 29:455–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brox IJ, Sorensen R, Friis A, Nygaard O, Indahl A, Keller A, Ingebrigtsen T, Eriksen HR, Holm I, Koller AK, Riise R, Reikeras O (2003) Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine 28:1913–1921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dabbs VM, Dabbs LG (1990) Correlation between disc height narrowing and low-back pain. Spine 15:1366–1369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Etebar S, Cahill DW (1999) Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg Spine 90:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farfan HF (1973) Mechanical disorders of the low back. Lea & Febiger, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordwall A (2004) 5–10 Years follow-up in the Swedish lumbar spine study. Spineweek Porto, Portugal, 30 May–05 June 2004Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27:1131–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gamradt SC, Wang JC (2005) Lumbar disc arthroplasty. Spine J 5:95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geisler FH, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Johnson JP, Mullin B (2004) Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charite intervertebral disc. J Neurosurg Spine 1:143–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, Hsu WK, Dawson EG (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:1497–1503PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane review. Spine 30(20):2312–2320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Allam Y, Elsaghir H, Franke J (2004) Reoperation rate after instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a report on 1680 cases. Spine 29:2516–2520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14:551–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hambly MF, Wiltse LL, Raghavan N, Schneiderman G, Koenig C (1998) The transition zone above a lumbosacral fusion. Spine 23:1785–1792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanley EN Jr., David SM (1999) Lumbar arthrodesis for the treatment of back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:716–730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4:190S–194SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ishihara H, Osada R, Kanamori M, Kawaguchi Y, Ohmori K, Kimura T, Matsui H, Tsuji H (2001) Minimum 10-year follow-up study of anterior lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord 14:91–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kanayama M, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Harada M, Oha F, Ohkoshi Y, Tada H, Yamamoto K, Yamane S (2001) Adjacent-segment morbidity after Graf ligamentoplasty compared with posterolateral lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg 95:5–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kimura S, Steinbach GC, Watenpaugh DE, Hargens AR (2001) Lumbar spine disc height and curvature responses to an axial load generated by a compression device compatible with magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 26:2596–2600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kumar MN, Jacquot F, Hall H (2001) Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 10:309–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuslich SD, Danielson G, Dowdle JD, Sherman J, Fredrickson B, Yuan H, Griffith SL (2000) Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Spine 25:2656–2662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leong JC, Chun SY, Grange WJ, Fang D (1983) Long-term results of lumbar intervertebral disc prolapse. Spine 8:793–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JC, Dvorak J, Grob D (2006) Development of a German version of the Oswestry disability index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J 15:55–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mannion AF, Junge A, Grob D, Dvorak J, Fairbank JC (2006) Development of a German version of the Oswestry disability index. Part 2: sensitivity to change after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 15:66–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miyakoshi N, Abe E, Shimada Y, Okuyama K, Suzuki T, Sato K (2000) Outcome of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and postoperative intervertebral disc degeneration adjacent to the fusion. Spine 25:1837–1842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 29:1938–1944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pihlajamaki H, Bostman O, Ruuskanen M, Myllynen P, Kinnunen J, Karaharju E (1996) Posterolateral lumbosacral fusion with transpedicular fixation: 63 consecutive cases followed for 4 (2–6) years. Acta Orthop Scand 67:63–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pope MH, Hanley EN, Matteri RE, Wilder DG, Frymoyer JW (1977) Measurement of intervertebral disc space height. Spine 2:282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL (1996) Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine 21:970–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Seitsalo S, Schlenzka D, Poussa M, Osterman K (1997) Disc degeneration in young patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated operatively or conservatively: a long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 6:393–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shao Z, Rompe G, Schiltenwolf M (2002) Radiographic changes in the lumbar intervertebral discs and lumbar vertebrae with age. Spine 27:263–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Throckmorton TW, Hilibrand AS, Mencio GA, Hodge A, Spengler DM (2003) The impact of adjacent level disc degeneration on health status outcomes following lumbar fusion. Spine 28:2546–2550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vaccaro AR, Ring D, Scuderi G, Cohen DS, Garfin SR (1997) Predictors of outcome in patients with chronic back pain and low-grade spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:2030–2034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van Horn JR, Bohnen LM (1992) The development of discopathy in lumbar discs adjacent to a lumbar anterior interbody spondylodesis. Acta Orthop Belg 58:280–286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wiltse LL, Hambly MF (1994) Degenerative changes in the first two segments above a lumbosacral fusion: a 22.6 year (average) follow-up. In: Wittenberg RH (ed) Instrumented spinal fusion. Thieme Medical Publishers, New York, pp 178–189Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wiltse LL, Radecki SE, Biel HM, DiMartino PP, Oas RA, Farjalla G, Ravessoud FA, Wohletz C (1999) Comparative study of the incidence and severity of degenerative change in the transition zones after instrumented versus noninstrumented fusions of the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord 12:27–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhou SH, McCarthy ID, McGregor AH, Coombs RR, Hughes SP (2000) Geometrical dimensions of the lower lumbar vertebrae—analysis of data from digitised CT images. Eur Spine J 9:242–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias L. Schulte
    • 1
    Email author
  • Freek Leistra
    • 1
  • Viola Bullmann
    • 1
  • Nani Osada
    • 2
  • Volker Vieth
    • 3
  • Björn Marquardt
    • 1
  • Thomas Lerner
    • 1
  • Ulf Liljenqvist
    • 1
  • Lars Hackenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity Hospital MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Department of Medical Informatics and BiomathematicsUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  3. 3.Department of Clinical RadiologyUniversity Hospital MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations