medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2002, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2002; 16 (1)

Surgical treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis with or without posterior instrumentation.

Bernal-Márquez JN, Martínez-Van Gils S

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 23-28
PDF size: 127.29 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The present study compares all consecutive cases of patients diagnosed with degenerative spondylolisthesis that were managed surgically in the spinal unit of our Hospital, between January 1998 and May 2000. We treated 33 patients, 16 by decompressive laminectomy, nerve root release and posterolaleral arthrodesis, against 17 patients which were treated by decompressive laminectomy, nerve root release, reduction of spondylolisthesis, posterior instrumentation with U. S. S. (Synthes), and posterolateral arthrodesis. We found that in the group treated by posterior instrumentation, the surgical time was longer, there was larger amount of blood loss, prolonged hospital stay, longer time-period for walking, higher number of complications, and higher number of re-interventions. These findings were statistically significant. We also found that there was no statistically significant differences between pain relief and neurological recovery. These findings relate with other studies found in literature, so that we can conclude that the surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis with posterior transpedicular instrumentation increases morbidity, mortality and costs, without a true beneficial effect in the final outcome over non-instrumented procedures.


REFERENCES

  1. Andersson G, Boden SD, Fraser RD, Grafin S, Goel VK. Focus issue on fusion. Spine 1996; 20 (Suppl).

  2. Boss N, Marchesi D, Zuber K. Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by reduction and pedicular fixation. Spine 1993; 18(12): 1655-61.

  3. Castañeda Soto J. Espondilolistesis lumbar en el adulto, resultados de tratamiento quirúrgico. Tesis de postgrado HTOLV 1990: pp. 39.

  4. Esses SI, Hurler RJ. Indications for lumbar spine fusion in the adult. Clin Orthop 1992; 279: 87-100.

  5. Frederickson B, Barker D, Mcholick JW. The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 1995; 66A(5): 699-707.

  6. Frymoyer JW. Low Back pain, the role of spinal fusion. Neurosurg Clin North Am 1991: 1(2): 933-54.

  7. Gibson JN, Grant IC, Wadell C. The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine 1999; 24(17): 1820-32.

  8. Greenough C. Results of treatment of lumbar spine disorders. Effects of assessment techniques and confounding factors. Acta Orthop Scand, (Suppl) 1993; 251: 126-9.

  9. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA, Grobler LJ. Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or non-instrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1997; 22(10): 1123-31.

  10. Garreau de Loubresse, Bon T, Deburge A. Posterolateral fusion for radicular pain in isthmic spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1996; 323: 194-201.

  11. Matthew NS, Rovin R. Repair of the pars interarticularis defect with cable-screw construct. Spine 1998; 23(2): 263-9.

  12. McCulloch JA. Microdecompression and uninstrumented single level fusion for spinal canal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 1998; 23(20): 2243-53.

  13. Muschik M, Zippel H, Perka C. Surgical management of severe spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. Spine 1997; 22(2): 2036-42.

  14. Porchet F, Vader JP, Larequi LT, Costanza MC, Brunard B, Dubois RW. The assessment of appropriate indications for laminectomy. J Bone Joint Surg 1999; 81B(2): 234-9.

  15. Puttlitz CM, Goel VK, Pope MH. Biomechanical testing sequelae relevant to spinal fusion and instrumentation. Orthop Clin North Am 1998; 29(4): 571-90.

  16. Radek A, Zapalowics K. The application intervertebral implant for spine stabilization. Neurol Neurochir Pol 1998; 23(3): 705-11.

  17. Riccardi JE, Pflueger PC, Isaza JE. Transpedicular fixation for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. Spine 1995; 20(17): 1917-22.

  18. Richard N. Historical perspective spondylolysis. Spine 1995; 20(7): 1950-6.

  19. Rothman S. The Spine. Fourth Edition, 1999: pp. 835.

  20. Shandu HS, Boden SD. Biologic enhancement of spinal fusion. Orthop Clin North Am 1998; 29(4): 621-34.

  21. Suck S, Lee CK, Kim WJ. Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylotic spondylolisthesis. Spine 1997; 22(2): 210-20.

  22. Tillard W. Etiology of spondylolisthesis. Clinical Orthop 1976; 115: 30-9.

  23. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. A prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine 1997; 22(24): 2813-22.

  24. Turner RH, Bianco AJ. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in children and teenagers. J Bone Joint Surg 1979; 53A: 1298-306.

  25. Wiltse LL, Newman PH, McNab. Classification of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop 1976; 117: 23-9.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com