Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Clinical symptoms in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) vary from predominantly radiating pain to severe mechanical low back pain. We examined whether the outcome of surgery for LDS varied depending on the predominant baseline symptom and the treatment administered [decompression with fusion (D&F) or decompression alone (D)].

Methods

213 consecutive patients (69 ± 9 years; 155f, 58 m) participated. Inclusion criteria were LDS, maximum three affected levels, no previous surgery at the affected level, and D (N = 56) or D&F (N = 157) as the operative procedure. Pre-op and at 12 months’ follow-up (FU), patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) including 0–10 leg-pain (LP) and LBP scales. At 12 months’ FU, patients rated global outcome which was then dichotomised into “good” and “poor”.

Results

Pre-operatively, LBP and COMI scores were significantly worse (p < 0.05) in the D&F group than in the D group. The improvement in COMI at 12 months’ FU was significantly greater for D&F than for D (p < 0.001) and was not influenced by the patient’s declared “main problem” at baseline (back pain, leg pain, or neurological disturbances) (p > 0.05). There was a higher proportion (p = 0.01) of “good” outcomes at 12 months’ FU in D&F (86%) than in D (70%). Multiple regression analysis, controlling for possible confounders, revealed treatment group to be the only significant predictor of outcome (adding fusion = better outcome).

Discussion

Our study indicated that LDS patients showed better patient-based outcome with instrumented fusion and decompression than with decompression alone, regardless of baseline symptoms. This may be due to the fact that the underlying slippage as the cause of the stenosis is better addressed with fusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cummins J, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Abdu WA, Birkmeyer NJ, Herkowitz H, Weinstein J (2006) Descriptive epidemiology and prior healthcare utilization of patients in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial’s (SPORT) three observational cohorts: disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:806–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Epstein NE, Epstein JA, Carras R, Lavine LS (1983) Degenerative spondylolisthesis with an intact neural arch: a review of 60 cases with an analysis of clinical findings and the development of surgical management. Neurosurgery 13:555–561

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, Brower R, Montgomery DM, Kurz LT (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 (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2807–2812

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fox MW, Onofrio BM, Hanssen AD (1996) Clinical outcomes and radiological instability following decompressive lumbar laminectomy for degenerative spinal stenosis: a comparison of patients undergoing concomitant arthrodesis versus decompression alone. J Neurosurg 85:793–802

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghogawala Z, Benzel EC, Amin-Hanjani S, Barker FG 2nd, Harrington JF, Magge SN, Strugar J, Coumans JV, Borges LF (2004) Prospective outcomes evaluation after decompression with or without instrumented fusion for lumbar stenosis and degenerative Grade I spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 1:267–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Rovsing H, Monrad H, Gebuhr P (2007) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: an epidemiological perspective: the Copenhagen Osteoarthritis Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:120–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA, Grobler LJ, Weinstein JN, Brick GW, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1997) Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:1123–1131

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kelleher MO, Timlin M, Persaud O, Rampersaud YR (2010) Success and failure of minimally invasive decompression for focal lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:E981–E987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kleinstuck FS, Fekete T, Jeszenszky D, Mannion AF, Grob D, Lattig F, Mutter U, Porchet F (2011)The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant pre-operative low back pain. Eur Spine J (in press)

  10. Kleinstuck FS, Grob D, Lattig F, Bartanusz V, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, O’Riordan D, Mannion AF (2009) The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1198–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL, Ditkoff JS (2004) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:726–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: part 1. The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18:367–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Martin CR, Gruszczynski AT, Braunsfurth HA, Fallatah SM, O’Neil J, Wai EK (2007) The surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1791–1798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Matsudaira K, Yamazaki T, Seichi A, Takeshita K, Hoshi K, Kishimoto J, Nakamura K (2005) Spinal stenosis in grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study of outcomes following laminoplasty and laminectomy with instrumented spinal fusion. J Orthop Sci 10:270–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Okuda S, Oda T, Miyauchi A, Haku T, Yamamoto T, Iwasaki M (2007) Surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(Suppl 2 Pt.2):310–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pearson AM, Lurie JD, Blood EA, Frymoyer JW, Braeutigam H, An H, Girardi FP, Weinstein JN (2008) Spine patient outcomes research trial: radiographic predictors of clinical outcomes after operative or nonoperative treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2759–2766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Postacchini F, Perugia D (1991) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Part I: etiology, pathogenesis, pathomorphology, and clinical features. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 17:165–173

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rousseau MA, Lazennec JY, Bass EC, Saillant G (2005) Predictors of outcomes after posterior decompression and fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 14:55–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sansur CA, Reames DL, Smith JS, Hamilton DK, Berven SH, Broadstone PA, Choma TJ, Goytan MJ, Noordeen HH, Knapp DR, Hart RA, Zeller RD, Donaldson WF, Polly DW, Perra JH, Boachie-Adjei O, Shaffrey CI (2010) Morbidity and mortality in the surgical treatment of 10, 242 adults with spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 13:589–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Satomi K, Hirabayashi K, Toyama Y, Fujimura Y (1992) A clinical study of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Radiographic analysis and choice of treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:1329–1336

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2005) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: review of current trends and controversies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:S71–S81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Toyoda H, Nakamura H, Konishi S, Dohzono S, Kato M, Matsuda H (2011) Clinical outcome of microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach for lumbar canal stenosis: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(5):410–415

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wai EK, Howse K, Pollock JW, Dornan H, Vexler L, Dagenais S (2009) The reliability of determining “leg dominant pain”. Spine J 9:447–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Tosteson AN, Blood EA, Birkmeyer NJ, Hilibrand AS, Herkowitz H, Cammisa FP, Albert TJ, Emery SE, Lenke LG, Abdu WA, Longley M, Errico TJ, Hu SS (2007) Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 356:2257–2270

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Blood EA, Tosteson AN, Birkmeyer N, Herkowitz H, Longley M, Lenke L, Emery S, Hu SS (2009) Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1295–1304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yone K, Sakou T, Kawauchi Y, Yamaguchi M, Yanase M (1996) Indication of fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients and its significance. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:242–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Gordana Balaban, Dave O’Riordan, Julian Amacker, Kirsten Clift, and Sara Preziosa, for their excellent work collecting the data

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland

    F. S. Kleinstueck, T. F. Fekete, A. F. Mannion, D. Grob, F. Porchet, U. Mutter & D. Jeszenszky

Authors
  1. F. S. Kleinstueck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. F. Fekete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. F. Mannion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Grob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. Porchet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. U. Mutter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. Jeszenszky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. S. Kleinstueck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kleinstueck, F.S., Fekete, T.F., Mannion, A.F. et al. To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer?. Eur Spine J 21, 268–275 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1896-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1896-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation