The argument for instrumented decompressive posterolateral fusion for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis.
J. Fischgrund
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000111142.76601.1A
IF: 3.241
2004-01-15
Spine
Abstract:The role of arthrodesis in the operative management of lumbar spinal stenosis with associated degenerative spondylolisthesis has been the subject of numerous reports over the past several decades. Although in the minority, some surgeons have reported clinical success after decompression alone, whereas the majority of authors recommend concomitant posterolateral fusion for the patient who requires decompression for spinal stenosis with associated degenerative spondylolisthesis. In 1991, Herkowitz and Kurz published a randomized prospective study comparing the results of decompressive lumbar laminectomy alone, with lumbar laminectomy and posterolateral arthrodesis. Fifty patients were assigned alternatively to the 2 groups and were evaluated at a mean of 3 years after the surgical procedure. The results of this landmark study indicated that those patients who had an arthrodesis at the time of the initial surgical outcome had a statistically significant improvement in their clinical outcome. The meta-analysis by Mardjetko et al concerning the operative treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis also demonstrated that the outcome was significantly better when concomitant arthrodesis was performed (P 0.0001). According to his analysis, the clinical result was satisfactory in only 69% of the 260 patients who had a decompression without spinal arthrodesis, with progression of the spondylolisthesis in 31% of these patients. Those patients who had an operative decompression with posterolateral arthrodesis realized a satisfactory clinical outcome of 90%, with a progressive listhesis in only 17%. These two studies, as well as many others, have conclusively shown that patients undergoing decompression for spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis have an improved clinical outcome with the addition of an arthrodesis attempt. However, many questions arose regarding those patients who had an attempt arthrodesis, but went on to a pseudarthrosis. Herkowitz and Kurz initially felt that even the attempt at arthrodesis was beneficial, in that it decreased subsequent motion, thereby leading to a satisfactory long-term outcome. However, as their initial study was concluding in the early 1990s, the use of spinal instrumentation was becoming more common for many surgical lumbar procedures. Therefore, the question was raised regarding the outcome of this group of patients if instrumentation was performed at the same time of arthrodesis. Would this improve the fusion rate? More importantly, would this improve the clinical outcome? Finally, what will happen to these patients long-term? Although short-term results look promising, where will these patients be in 5, 10, or 15 years? These questions led to a second prospective randomized study performed at our institution in the mid 1990s. In 1997, my colleagues and I published a prospective randomized study comparing the results of decompression and arthrodesis alone with those of decompression and arthrodesis combined with instrumentation. Sixtyeight patients were randomized to one of these two treatment groups. After an average of 2 years of follow-up, the results demonstrated that the addition of spinal instrumentation improved the fusion rate (83% vs. 45%). However, during this short-term follow-up, no significant difference in clinical outcome was noted. An obvious criticism of this paper is the relatively short-term follow-up, as well as the fact that we reported a very low fusion rate in the noninstrumented patients. Although the use of instrumentation did not show a change in clinical outcome at 2 years, the question remained: what happened to these patients long-term? In an effort to answer these questions, we undertook Part III of our study, which involved 47 of the patients from the prior two studies with single-level symptomatic spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. We selected those patients treated with posterior decompression and bilateral posterior arthrodesis with autogenous bone graft and no instrumentation. These patients were observed from 5 to 14 years, with an average follow-up of 8 years. We found that long-term clinical outcome was excellent or good in 86% of patients with solid arthrodesis, but only 56% of patients who developed a pseudarthrosis (P 0.01). Significant differences in residual back and lower limb pain was discovered between the two groups, with the solid fusion group performing significantly better in the symptom, severity, and physical function categories on selfadministered questionnaires. We concluded that those patients undergoing single-level decompression with posterior arthrodesis for spinal stenosis and concurrent spondylolisthesis, who had a solid fusion, had improved clinical results. In this study, we demonstrated the benefit From Weissman, Gitlin, Herkowitz, M.D., P.C., Southfield, Missouri. The device(s)/drug(s) is/are FDA-approved or approved by corresponding national agency for this indication. No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript. Address correspondence to Jeffrey S. Fischgrund, MD, 27207 Lahser Road, Suite 200-B, Southfield, MI 48076, USA; E-mail : jsfischgrund@comcast.net