Indications, techniques, and outcomes of posterior surgery for chronic low back pain

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00014-2Get rights and content

Section snippets

Etiologic considerations in patients with low back pain

Though low back pain may be caused by a wide spectrum of conditions, a specific etiology cannot be firmly established in the majority of patients for whom the diagnosis of idiopathic or nonspecific low back pain is assigned [1]. Unfortunately, neither our understanding of the pathophysiology nor our current level of diagnostic sophistication are sufficient to determine convincingly the exact pathoanatomic etiology in most cases of low back pain. The consequences of age-related intervertebral

Diagnostic modalities—a surgical perspective

For the surgeon attempting to delineate which chronic low back pain patients are appropriate candidates for a fusion operation and determining what levels actually warrant fusion, the primary diagnostic tools include plain radiographs with flexion and extension views, MRI, and provocative diskography. Plain radiographs provide a great deal of information in terms of the presence of intraosseous pathology, intervertebral disk height, and overall sagittal and coronal plane alignment. Flexion and

Indications for surgical intervention

This brief discussion of the diagnostic tools used to investigate low back pain should make it fairly obvious that our ability to delineate the exact cause of lumbar symptoms and then predict the outcome of surgical fusion based on these findings is far from perfect. A rational approach to the diagnosis of low back pain, and a reasonable perspective on the ability of surgery to improve on its natural history, is therefore necessary. In this regard, low back pain patients are generally

Outcomes of surgical treatment

Overall, despite the enormous attention paid to low back pain and its treatment, the role of surgical management is remarkably poorly defined. A Cochrane review of surgical treatment for degenerative spondylosis published in 1999 concluded that there was a “serious lack” of current evidence to support surgical intervention for chronic low back pain, pointing out the nonexistence of prospective randomized controlled comparisons of surgery to nonoperative care of chronic low back pain and other

Posterior surgical fusion procedures

A number of well-accepted options exist for performing lumbar arthrodesis from a posterior approach. These include posterolateral intertransverse fusion, with or without pedicle screw instrumentation, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Both interbody procedures usually are, and should be, supported with an additional instrumented procedure. An intertransverse approach to performing lumbar interbody fusion has recently been described, but experience

Posterolateral intertransverse fusion (with or without pedicle screw instrumentation)

Posterolateral fusion in which autologous bone graft is laid along the decorticated transverse processes and posterolateral surfaces of the facet joints and pars interarticularis is the most common method of promoting fusion in the lumbar spine (Fig. 3). With the explosion of interest in spinal instrumentation over the past 2 decades, it has been common to supplement posterolateral intertransverse fusions with pedicle screw fixation. Considering that one of the goals of lumbar arthrodesis for

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion

The technique of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) was introduced over half a century ago by Ralph Cloward. In its original form, the PLIF involved a laminectomy, subtotal diskectomy, and then insertion of bone graft into the disk space to promote anterior interbody fusion. The contemporary iterations of this procedure now include an attempt to excise as much of the disk as possible through a wide laminectomy and the insertion of a large interbody spacer device with autogenous bone graft

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

The transforaminal approach to the intervertebral disk was developed by Harms as a means of approaching the intervertebral disk in a more lateral fashion to reduce the amount of medial neural retraction necessary to achieve adequate access [59] (Fig. 5). The technique, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), involves distraction across pedicle screws and a unilateral facetectomy to gain access to the disk space. TLIF facilitates direct decompression of the nerve roots on that side but,

Summary

This article summarizes a number of issues surrounding the diagnosis, indications, and techniques of posterior lumbar spine surgery for chronic low back pain. It would not be entirely unjustified for a spine surgeon to adhere to a totally avoidant approach to chronic low back pain, rationalized by a reasonably legitimate nihilism regarding the presently available means of diagnosing and surgically managing low back pain [64]. Judging by the number of lumbar fusions performed in North America

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (64)

  • A.L. Nachemson

    Instability of the lumbar spine. Pathology, treatment, and clinical evaluation

    Neurosurg Clin N Am

    (1991)
  • R.A. Deyo

    Diagnostic evaluation of LBP: reaching a specific diagnosis is often impossible

    Arch Intern Med

    (2002)
  • S.D. Boden et al.

    Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation

    J Bone Joint Surg [Am]

    (1990)
  • H.N. Herkowitz et al.

    Lumbar spine fusion in the treatment of degenerative conditions: current indications and recommendations

    J Am Acad Orthop Surg

    (1995)
  • K.F. Spratt et al.

    Efficacy of flexion and extension treatments incorporating braces for low-back pain patients with retrodisplacement, spondylolisthesis, or normal sagittal translation

    Spine

    (1993)
  • H.N. Herkowitz et al.

    Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis

    J Bone Joint Surg [Am]

    (1991)
  • J.S. Fischgrund et al.

    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

    (1997)
  • P. Axelsson et al.

    Posterolateral lumbar fusion. Outcome of 71 consecutive operations after 4 (2–7) years

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (1994)
  • C.G. Greenough et al.

    Anterior lumbar fusion: results, assessment techniques and prognostic factors

    Eur Spine J

    (1994)
  • H. Sato et al.

    The natural history of radiographic instability of the lumbar spine

    Spine

    (1993)
  • O.L. Osti et al.

    Annular tears and disc degeneration in the lumbar spine. A post-mortem study of 135 discs

    J Bone Joint Surg [Br]

    (1992)
  • S.W. Yu et al.

    Tears of the anulus fibrosus: correlation between MR and pathologic findings in cadavers

    Am J Neuroradiol

    (1988)
  • C. Aprill et al.

    High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging

    Br J Radiol

    (1992)
  • M.T. Modic et al.

    Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging

    Radiology

    (1988)
  • D. Weishaupt et al.

    MR imaging of the lumbar spine: prevalence of intervertebral disk extrusion and sequestration, nerve root compression, end plate abnormalities, and osteoarthritis of the facet joints in asymptomatic volunteers

    Radiology

    (1998)
  • D. Weishaupt et al.

    Painful lumbar disk derangement: relevance of endplate abnormalities at MR Imaging

    Radiology

    (2001)
  • A. Saifuddin et al.

    The value of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging in the demonstration of anular tears

    Spine

    (1998)
  • R. Ricketson et al.

    The prolapsed intervertebral disc. The high-intensity zone with discography correlation

    Spine

    (1996)
  • M.C. Jensen et al.

    Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain

    N Engl J Med

    (1994)
  • H. Paajanen et al.

    Magnetic resonance study of disc degeneration in young low-back pain patients

    Spine

    (1989)
  • T.W. Stadnik et al.

    Annular tears and disk herniation: prevalence and contrast enhancement on MR images in the absence of low back pain or sciatica

    Radiology

    (1998)
  • D.G. Borenstein et al.

    The value of magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine to predict low-back pain in asymptomatic subjects: a seven-year follow-up study

    J Bone Joint Surg [Am]

    (2001)
  • R.D. Guyer et al.

    Lumbar discography. Position statement from the North American Spine Society Diagnostic and Therapeutic Committee

    Spine

    (1995)
  • S.E. Smith et al.

    Outcome of unoperated discogram-positive low back pain

    Spine

    (1995)
  • G. Schneiderman et al.

    Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of disc degeneration: correlation with discography

    Spine

    (1987)
  • M. Ito et al.

    Predictive signs of discogenic lumbar pain on magnetic resonance imaging with discography correlation

    Spine

    (1998)
  • J. Zucherman et al.

    Normal magnetic resonance imaging with abnormal discography

    Spine

    (1988)
  • M.W. van Tulder et al.

    Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions

    Spine

    (1997)
  • D.C. Cherkin et al.

    A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain

    N Engl J Med

    (1998)
  • C.Y. Hsieh et al.

    Effectiveness of four conservative treatments for subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial

    Spine

    (2002)
  • G.B. Andersson et al.

    A comparison of osteopathic spinal manipulation with standard care for patients with low back pain

    N Engl J Med

    (1999)
  • K. Gill et al.

    Functional results after anterior lumbar fusion at L5–S1 in patients with normal and abnormal MRI scans

    Spine

    (1992)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text