Skip to main content
Log in

Fusion for low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of the literature

  • Review
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate which fusion technique provides the best clinical and radiological outcome for adult low-grade lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, and to assess the overall clinical and radiological outcome of each fusion technique. A systematic review was performed. Medline, Embase, Current Contents, and Cochrane databases as well as reference lists of selected articles were searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were used to evaluate the best treatment; controlled studies and non-controlled studies were used to determine the outcomes after surgery. Two independent reviewers evaluated the studies with the methodological checklists of van Tulder and Jadad for the randomised studies and of Cowley for the non-randomised studies. The search resulted in 684 references and eventually 29 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which eight were RCTs, four were prospective, and 17 were retrospective case series. Ten of the case series did not clearly identify consecutive patient selection. All the eight RCTs evaluated the effect of different techniques of posterolateral fusion (PLF). Evidence was found that the PLF was superior to non-operative treatment (exercise). Circumferential fusion was compared to PLF, but no difference could be found. PLF with or without instrumentation was evaluated in three studies, but no benefits from additional instrumentation were found. Other comparisons within PLF showed no effect of decompression, alternative instrumentation, or bone graft substitute. The 21 case series included 24 patient groups. PLF was used in 15 groups, good or excellent clinical outcome varied from 60 to 98% and fusion rate varied from 81 to 100%. Anterior interbody fusion was used in five groups, good or excellent clinical outcome varied from 85 to 94% and fusion rate varied from 47 to 90%. Posterior interbody fusion was used in two groups, good or excellent clinical outcome was 45% and fusion rate was 80 and 95%, respectively. Reduction, loss of reduction, and lordotic angles before and after the treatment was reported in only four studies. Average reduction achieved was 12.3%, average loss of reduction at follow-up was 5.9%. Preoperative lordotic angles were too heterogeneous to pool the results. Adjacent segment degeneration was not reported in any of the publications. A wide variety of complications were reported in 18 studies and included neurological complications, instrument failure, and infections. Fusion for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis has better outcomes than non-operative treatment. The current study could not identify the best surgical technique (PLF, PLIF, ALIF, instrumentation) to perform the fusion. However, instrumentation and/or decompression may play a beneficial role in the modern practice of reduction and fusion for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis, but there are no studies yet available to confirm this. The outcomes of fusion are generally good, but reports vary widely.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boos N, Marchesi D, Heitz R, Aebi M (1992) [Surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis with mild displacement by pedicular fixation and posterolateral fusion in adults]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 78(4):228–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carragee EJ (1997) Single-level posterolateral arthrodesis, with or without posterior decompression, for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79(8):1175–1180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chang P, Seow KH, Tan SK (1993) Comparison of the results of spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis in patients who are instrumented with patients who are not. Singapore Med J 34(6):511–514

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen L, Tang T, Yang H (2003) Complications associated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using Bagby and Kuslich method for treatment of spondylolisthesis. Chin Med J 116(1):99–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Eiskjaer SP, et al (2002) Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients. Spine 27(23):2674–2683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Christensen FB, Karlsmose B, Hansen ES, Bunger CE (1996) Radiological and functional outcome after anterior lumbar interbody spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 5(5):293–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cowley DE (1995) Prostheses for primary total hip replacement A critical appraisal of the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 11(4):770–778

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Davne SH, Myers DL (1992) Complications of lumbar spinal fusion with transpedicular instrumentation. Spine 17(Suppl 6):S184–S189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fischgrund JS (2004) The argument for instrumented decompressive posterolateral fusion for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine 29(2):173–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Floman Y (2000) Progression of lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. Spine 25(3):342–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, et al (1999) A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion Outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine 24(6):553–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. GILL GG, Manning JG, White HL (1955) Surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis without spine fusion; excision of the loose lamina with decompression of the nerve roots. J Bone Joint Surg Am 37(3):493–520

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Haggart GE, Hammond G, Wise RE (1957) Review of seventy-three cases of spondylolisthesis treated by arthrodesis. JAMA 163(3):175–180

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hanley EN Jr, Levy JA (1989) Surgical treatment of isthmic lumbosacral spondylolisthesis Analysis of variables influencing results. Spine 14(1):48–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson LP, Nasca RJ, Dunham WK (1988) Surgical management of isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine 13(1):93–97

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnsson R, Stromqvist B, Aspenberg P (2002) Randomized radiostereometric study comparing osteogenic protein-1 (BMP-7) and autograft bone in human noninstrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion: 2002 Volvo Award in clinical studies. Spine 27(23):2654–2661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kamioka Y, Yamamoto H (1990) Lumbar trapezoid plate for lumbar spondylolisthesis A clinical study on preoperative and postoperative instability. Spine 15(11):1198–1203

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaneda K, Satoh S, Nohara Y, Oguma T (1985) Distraction rod instrumentation with posterolateral fusion in isthmic spondylolisthesis 53 cases followed for 18–89 months. Spine 10(4):383–389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim NH, Lee JW (1999) Anterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion with transpedicular fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults A comparison of clinical results. Spine 24(8):812–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Knight M, Goswami A (2003) Management of isthmic spondylolisthesis with posterolateral endoscopic foraminal decompression. Spine 28(6):573–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. L’Heureux EA Jr, Perra JH, Pinto MR, Smith MD, Denis F, Lonstein JE (2003) Functional outcome analysis including preoperative and postoperative SF-36 for surgically treated adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine 28(12):1269–1274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lonstein JE (1999) Spondylolisthesis in children Cause, natural history, and management. Spine 24(24):2640–2648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Markwalder TM, Saager C, Reulen HJ (1991) “Isthmic” spondylolisthesis—an analysis of the clinical and radiological presentation in relation to intraoperative findings and surgical results in 72 consecutive cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 110(3–4):154–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McGuire RA, Amundson GM (1993) The use of primary internal fixation in spondylolisthesis. Spine 18(12):1662–1672

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McTimoney CA, Micheli LJ (2003) Current evaluation and management of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Curr Sports Med Rep 2(1):41–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Meyerding HW (1932) Spondylolisthesis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 54:371–378

    Google Scholar 

  27. Molinari RW (2002) Adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Curr Opin Orthop 13(3):178–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moller H, Hedlund R (2000) Instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis—a prospective randomized study: part 2. Spine 25(13):1716–1721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Moller H, Hedlund R (2000) Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis—a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine 25(13):1711–1715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Moon M-S, Kim S-S, Sun D-H, Moon Y-W (1994) Anterior spondylodesis for spondylolisthesis: isthmic and degenerative types. Eur Spine J 3(3):172–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nooraie H, Ensafdaran A, Arasteh MM (1999) Surgical management of low-grade lytic spondylolisthesis with C-D instrumentation in adult patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 119(5–6):337–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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(17):1938–1944

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ricciardi JE, Pflueger PC, Isaza JE, Whitecloud TS III (1995) Transpedicular fixation for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. Spine 20(17):1917–1922

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schnee CL, Freese A, Ansell LV (1997) Outcome analysis for adults with spondylolisthesis treated with posterolateral fusion and transpedicular screw fixation. J Neurosurg 86(1):56–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Spruit M, Pavlov PW, Leitao J, de Kleuver M, Anderson PG, den Boer F (2002) Posterior reduction and anterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: short-term radiological and functional outcome. Eur Spine J 11(5):428–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Stewart T (1953) The age incidence of neural arch defects in Alaskan natives, considered from the standpoint of etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 35:937–950

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Kim HG (1997) Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 22(2):210–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Taillard WF (1976) Etiology of spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop 117:30–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Thalgott JS, Sasso RC, Cotler HB, Aebi M, LaRocca SH (1997) Adult spondylolisthesis treated with posterolateral lumbar fusion and pedicular instrumentation with AO DC plates. J Spinal Disord 10(3):204–208

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, Hansen ES, Fruensgaard S, Bunger CE (1997) 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine 22(24):2813–2822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tsuji H, Ishihara H, Matsui H, Hirano N, Ohshima H (1994) Anterior interbody fusion with and without interspinous block implementation for lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord 7(4):326–330

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 28(12):1290–1299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM (1997) Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. Spine 22(20):2323–2330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Verlooy J, De Smedt K, Selosse P (1993) Failure of a modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique to produce adequate pain relief in isthmic spondylolytic grade 1 spondylolisthesis patients. A prospective study of 20 patients. Spine 18(11):1491–1495

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wang JM, Kim DJ, Yun YH (1996) Posterior pedicular screw instrumentation and anterior interbody fusion in adult lumbar spondylolysis or grade I spondylolisthesis with segmental instability. J Spinal Disord 9(2):83–88

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wiltse LL (1962) The etiology of spondylolisthesis. Am J Orthop 44-A:539–560

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. R. Schrijnemakers and the Dutch Cochrane Centre for assisting in the literature search.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wilco C. H. Jacobs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacobs, W.C., Vreeling, A. & De Kleuver, M. Fusion for low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15, 391–402 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1021-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1021-4

Keywords

Navigation