Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 8, pp 1107–1112 | Cite as

Union versus nonunion after posterolateral lumbar fusion: a comparison of long-term surgical outcomes in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

  • Takahiro Tsutsumimoto
  • Mitsuhiko Shimogata
  • Yasuo Yoshimura
  • Hiromichi Misawa
Original Article

Abstract

It has been reported that in patients undergoing posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF), the fusion status is not related to the short-term operative results. To determine whether the fusion status influences the long-term operative results of PLF, we retrospectively examined the surgical outcomes of uninstrumented PLF for a minimum of 8 years (average, 9.5 years), by comparing cases exhibiting union with those exhibiting nonunion. Uninstrumented PLF was performed for the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis (LCS) with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Since nine patients were lost to final follow-up, the study included 42 patients, and the follow-up rate was 82.4%. The mean age of the patients was 64.1 years (range 46–77 years). Eight patients exhibited fusion at the L3–4 level and 34 patients, at the L4–5 level. The fusion status was assessed using plain radiographs. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Nonunion was noted in 26% (11/42) of the patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups exhibiting union and nonunion with respect to age, sex, preoperative JOA score, or preoperative lumbar instability. The union group achieved better operative results than the nonunion group at the 5-year and final follow-up (P = 0.006 and 0.008, respectively) although there was no significant difference in the percent recovery at 1 and 3-year follow-up (P = 0.515 and 0.506, respectively). A stepwise regression analysis revealed that the best combination of predictors for percent recovery at the time of final follow-up included the fusion status and the presence of comorbid disease. The results indicate that the fusion status following PLF is a critical factor influencing the long-term but not short-term operative results in the treatment of LCS with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Key words

Lumbar spinal fusion Posterolateral lumbar fusion Lumbar canal stenosis Degenerative spondylolisthesis 

References

  1. 1.
    Boden SD (2002) Overview of the biology of lumbar spine fusion and principles for selecting a bone graft substitute. Spine 27:S26–S31. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200208151-00007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD et al (2007) Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of fine-cut CT scans with reconstructions to determine the status of an instrumented posterolateral fusion with surgical exploration as reference standard. Spine 32:892–895. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000259808.47104.dd CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen Q, Baba H, Kamitani K et al (1994) Postoperative bone re-growth in lumbar spinal stenosis. A multivariate analysis of 48 patients. Spine 19:2144–2149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dupuis PR, Yong-Hing K, Cassidy JD et al (1985) Radiologic diagnosis of degenerative lumbar spinal instability. Spine 10:262–276. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198504000-00015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Esses SI, Huler RJ (1992) Indications for lumbar spine fusion in the adult. Clin Orthop:87–100Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN et al (1997) 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 22:2807–2812. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199712150-00003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT (1991) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:802–808PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K et al (1981) Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 6:354–364. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198107000-00005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Izumida S, Inoue S (1986) Assessment of treatment for low back pain. Japanese Orthopaedic Association. J Jpn Orthop Assoc 60:391–394Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jonsson B, Annertz M, Sjoberg C et al (1997) A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: five-year follow-up by an independent observer. Spine 22:2938–2944. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199712150-00017 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kant AP, Daum WJ, Dean SM et al (1995) Evaluation of lumbar spine fusion. Plain radiographs versus direct surgical exploration and observation. Spine 20:2313–2317. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199511000-00009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG et al (1991) The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:809–816Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 29:726–724. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000119398.22620.92 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mardjetko SM, Connolly PJ, Shott S (1994) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970–1993. Spine 19:2256S–2265S. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199410151-00002 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nagaosa Y, Kikuchi S, Hasue M et al (1998) Pathoanatomic mechanisms of degenerative spondylolisthesis. A radiographic study. Spine 23:1447–1451. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199807010-00004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC et al (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 29:1938–1944. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000137069.88904.03 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Polly DW Jr, Santos ER, Mehbod AA (2005) Surgical treatment for the painful motion segment: matching technology with the indications: posterior lumbar fusion. Spine 30:S44–S51. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000174529.07959.c0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Postacchini F, Cinotti G (1992) Bone regrowth after surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:862–869Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT et al (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2:653–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2005) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: review of current trends and controversies. Spine 30:S71–S81. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000155579.88537.8e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tajima N, Chosa E, Watanabe S (2004) Posterolateral lumbar fusion. J Orthop Sci 9:327–333. doi: 10.1007/s00776-004-0773-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trief PM, Ploutz-Snyder R, Fredrickson BE (2006) Emotional health predicts pain and function after fusion: a prospective multicenter study. Spine 31:823–830. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000206362.03950.5b CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zheng F, Sandhu HS, Cammisa FP Jr et al (2001) Predictors of functional outcome in elderly patients undergoing posterior lumbar spine surgery. J Spinal Disord 14:518–521. doi: 10.1097/00002517-200112000-00011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takahiro Tsutsumimoto
    • 1
  • Mitsuhiko Shimogata
    • 1
  • Yasuo Yoshimura
    • 1
  • Hiromichi Misawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Spine CenterYodakubo HospitalNagawa, NaganoJapan

Personalised recommendations