García-Ramos, CL¹; Valenzuela-González, J²; Baeza-Álvarez, VB¹; Rosales-Olivarez, LM³; Alpízar-Aguirre, A⁴; Reyes-Sánchez, A⁵

Language: English/Spanish [Versión en español]
References: 52
Page: 433-440
PDF size: 211.66 Kb.

ABSTRACT

There are various approaches and surgical techniques with the objective of nerve root decompression, restrict mobility, and fusion of the listhesis. Among the techniques, posterior interbody fusion combines direct and indirect root decompression with the fusion between vertebral bodies, placing an autologous bone graft between transverse apophysis and vertebral bodies. Transforaminal lumbar and posterior interbody fusion, on the same way, look to decompress and fuse but with a different approach to the spine. The anterior approach for interbody fusion provides a better fusion rate. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion is considered less invasive, with an anterolateral transpsoas approach. The lumbar fusion technique in degenerative spondylolisthesis must be individualized. Non-fusion decompression is considered a less invasive procedure. Various studies suggest that decompression has better results when fusion is added. Surgery had several potential benefits and greater improvement in those patients who fail conservative management. An optimal technique is not conclusively identified.

INTRODUCTION

Although the research guidelines aim to improve instrumentation techniques and offer increasingly specific treatments for each of the evolutionary stages of the disease to obtain better results and reduce the incidence of complications, non-surgical management should be the initial action in most spondylolisthesis with and without neurological symptoms.¹

Conservative management consists of a regimen of one to two days of rest, followed by a short period of anti-inflammatory drugs and by physical therapy.² Frymoyer³ established a treatment plan more than two decades ago, which is still used today; this therapy program includes anti-inflammatory drugs, aerobic exercise that improves arterial circulation in the compression zone, weight control, and management of osteoporosis. Regarding anti-inflammatory therapy, the objective is to act directly on the intervertebral joints and the nerve root, reducing the inflammatory mediators released by mechanical compression and therefore reducing pain. Acetaminophen is considered the drug of the first choice, which is preferred over non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because it has the same analgesic efficacy to risk-benefit, but without the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs, this makes it a drug better tolerated by elderly patients.

The next pain management option, in case of a failure within the first four to six weeks, is an infiltration,⁴ which, is recommended if patients fail a four to six-week course of physical therapy. Epidural corticosteroid injection with local anesthetic is injected over the region of the listhesis to relieve back pain, radicular pain, and neurogenic claudication. In long-term follow-ups in patients undergoing epidural steroid injection, no long-term benefit was demonstrated in degenerative disc disease, herniated disc, radicular low back pain, or spinal stenosis^5,6,7,8,9 although, a significant improvement was observed with short-term benefits with pain relief, functional improvement, and decreased operating rates.^10,11

Based on a systematic review, it reduced pain by 64 to 81%, disability by 60 to 63% and depression by 56% in patients with low back pain and leg pain and also improved walking tolerance. Even one year after the procedure, pain was reported to be lower than the baseline in a small population of patients. The factors associated with better outcomes after corticoid injection are higher pain scores at baseline, radicular symptoms for fewer than six months, and age less than 70 years. Since degenerative spondylolisthesis develops as a result of inflammatory arthritic and degenerative changes rather than segmental instability, this inflammatory process, could be relieved by epidural injection as a result of targeted delivery of the steroid at the level of spondylolisthesis.¹²

Facet joint injection is a procedure of injecting local anesthetics and steroids into facet joints for low back pain by facet joint sprain or degenerative changes. It has relatively less side effects and is simpler in terms of techniques than intraspinal treatments due to its direct access to facet joints through paraspinal muscles.¹³ Studies reported that facet join infiltration is effective not only in axial back pain by facet joints but also in lumbar spinal stenosis.^14,15 Hwang SY et al. reported a retrospective study for facet joint infiltration effects on lumbar spinal stenosis patients at risk of surgery hemorrhage due to several medical conditions. Facet joint infiltration was effective in 25 (59.5%) out of 42 patients. On MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), it was more effective in patients with mild-to-moderate central canal stenosis. In this study, it was assumed that steroids can be injected into the epidural space through facet joints. The authors injected 1 ml into each joint and additionally 2-4 ml contrast media or 0.9% normal saline to induce the rupture of the facet joint capsule and the drug efflux into the epidural space. However, there was no correlation between the discharge of contrast media and treatment effect.¹⁴ Its short-term benefit could be temporally control of pain only to allow the patient to carry out a better physiotherapy regimen.

Physiotherapy is one of the most used methods in the non-surgical management of symptoms associated with spondylolisthesis. Therapeutic protocols include different modalities for pain management, such as the use of a corset, exercises, ultrasound therapy, electrical stimulation, and modifications of daily activity.^16,17,18 Physiotherapy treatments are aimed at reducing pain, restore ranges of mobility, function, improve the balance of the core muscles, strengthen and stabilize the spine.^19,20 The use of a stationary bicycle promotes flexion of the spine and decompression of the dural sac, allowing a greater amount of exercise to be performed before presenting the symptoms of neurogenic claudication, as it is a static exercise it avoids the impact on the joints. Other options available are swimming, walking, and exercising on elliptical machines.²

The largest study reported to date comparing conservative versus surgical management is the SPORT study,^21,22 for its acronym in English (spine patient outcome research trial), published in 2013 where they follow up for two and four years to 395 patients undergoing surgery and 210 patients with conservative management. In the results, they show that all patients who underwent surgery had a greater improvement than those who were given conservative management and that the subgroups who benefits the most from surgery are: patients under 67 years of age, women, patients without the acid peptic disease, reflex asymmetry, neurogenic claudication, opioids users, patients who do not use antidepressants, disappointment with the symptoms, and those who have a high expectation of surgery. Weinstein et al.²³ found that patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis treated surgically showed improvement in pain and function during a follow-up period of two years compared to patients who underwent conservative management (Figure 1).

Surgical treatment

If improvement is not archived with the conservative management, surgical treatment must be performed, it brings better outcomes when everything has failed in patients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis, the question to perform a surgical procedure or not is a patient led decision around his symptoms and quality of life, the indications for surgical treatment are:¹

• 1. Persistent or recurrent lumbar or extremity pain, neurogenic claudication with reduced quality of life, or failure in conservative treatment for a minimum of three months.
• 2. Progressive neurological déficit.
• 3. Sex, bladder, or neurogenic intestine.

Simultaneously with the etiological description and knowledge of the causes, the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is developed, initially without the use of instrumentation, seeking only for the root decompression. With the development of pedicle instrumentation and the recognition of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis as a specific nosological entity, various approaches and surgical techniques were developed to restrict mobility and/or fuse the affected segments to treat instability and nerve roots compression.²⁴

Posterior interbody fusion (PIF) was initially described in 1925 by Campbell and implemented in 1953 by Cloward in degenerative spondylolisthesis.²⁴ This technique combines direct and indirect root decompression with the fusion between the vertebral bodies by placing an autologous bone graft. Cloward developed the technique using iliac bone grafts after discectomy and later studied the impact of bone grafts on postoperative sagittal balance, reporting a limited rate of complications.²⁵

Internal fixation with a transpedicular screw was described by King in 1944 and associated with interbody fusion in an attempt to avoid nonunion in spondylolisthesis, together with the development of the interbody cage by Roy-Camille contributed greatly to the advancement in current fixation and arthrodesis techniques.^26,27 Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is the traditional technique, is achieved by performing a fenestration in the laminae and partially resecting the facet, retracting later the dural sac and nerve roots to access the intersomatic space. In 1982, Harms and Rollinger developed the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) technique,²⁸ which has an advantage over PLIF, by avoiding over-retraction of the dural sac and nerve roots as the implant entry zone is at through the foramen, facilitating access to the intersomatic space so potentially avoiding injury in these structures,²⁹ later in 1988 Steffee and Sitowski associated posterior arthrodesis with posterior fixation.¹ The advantage of these approaches is that posterior access is the most common and familiar technique for spine surgeons, and decompression and fusion procedures can be performed through the same approach. In 2008, Yan et al.³⁰ compared PLIF versus TLIF for single-level fusion in grade I-II degenerative spondylolisthesis. They performed interbody fusions with posterior transpedicular instrumentation and a minimum follow-up of two years, reported no cases of migration and, all patients achieved fusion, also the complication profiles were similar between groups, with radiculitis and screw loosening, while Liu reported a significantly higher rate of dural tear in PLIF (12 vs 3.9%, p = 0.030), postoperative nerve root dysfunction (9.6 vs 1.9%, p = 0.018) and reoperation (10, 4 vs 1.9%, p = 0.018).³¹

Regarding clinical improvement, both techniques are reported with good or excellent scores in function, with an average pain improvement of four points (p ≤ 0.001).^30,31 The percentage of slip significantly improved between preoperative and initial postoperative radiographs in both groups an average of 30.1-31.4%. Liu et al.³¹ reported that patients in the PLIF group had significantly longer surgery times (242 ± 67 vs 188 ± 46 min, p = 0.037), higher intraoperative blood loss (483 ± 403 vs 308 ± 385 ml, p = 0.035) and higher blood transfusion rates (19.2 vs 4.9%, p = 0.001). Finally, both fusion techniques were successful in significantly increasing intervertebral space and foraminal height. In particular, there were no significant differences between the two radiographic measurements.

The different treatment options for spondylolisthesis have been extensively studied to identify which offer better clinical results and a lower rate of complications and reoperations, as the anterior approach for interbody fusion (ALIF) provides the best fusion rate due to the wide bone surface of the vertebral platforms compared to the one provided by posterior techniques. Indirect compression can be achieved with these techniques due to the ligamentotaxis effect exerted by the interbody cage. The muscular damage in this technique is minimal, complications, when they appear, tend to be more serious, the ureteral and intestinal injury, damage to the great vessels, and alterations in ejaculation in men are the most described.³²

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is recognized as a less invasive surgical method, performed through an anterolateral transpsoas approach.³³ LLIF has been used as an alternative to conventional anterior approaches and can be used from the L1-L2 to L4-L5 segment. There are sub-variants to this technique called extreme lateral (XLIF) and oblique (OLIF) interbody fusion, where the site of entry of the interbody cage varies to a lateral and oblique position, respectively. These techniques present less bleeding and surgical time, shorter hospital stay and lighter postoperative pain than the posterior approach. Among the complications reported is pain on flexion and extension of the hips due to manipulation of the iliac psoas, paresthesia, and motor alterations due to injury to the ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, lateral femoral cutaneous and genitofemoral nerves, other less frequent injuries include the large vessels trauma and post-incisional hernias.³²

The PLIF and LLIF in degenerative spondylolisthesis were compared in a study published by Pawar et al. in 2015,³⁴ reported that the surgery time was similar between the groups, but the average blood loss was significantly lower in the LLIF than the group PLIF (438 vs 750 min, p < 0.01), the incidence of dural tear was lower with LLIF (0 vs 5 p = 0.014). In the LLIF group, foraminal height, intervertebral space height, and lumbar lordosis were restored. No permanent iatrogenic neurological deficits were reported in either group. The LLIF group significantly decreased disability as measured by the Oswestry disability index, but without significant differences in other clinical outcome scores between groups.

Norton et al. reported that patients undergoing interbody fusion through an anterior or lateral approach are significantly less likely to develop intraoperative blood loss anemia but present a higher risk of visceral injury compared to those who underwent PLIF/TLIF³⁵ (Figure 2).

In the comparison between LLIF and minimally invasive TLIF in the treatment of one or two levels of grade I-II of degenerative spondylolisthesis, it was found that blood loss was lower in the LLIF group than in TLIF. The average surgery time and length of hospital stays did not differ between groups. As a complication, there was a weakness in hip flexion, which was observed in the LLIF group in 31% of the patients and resolved within six months in all cases. The sensory or distal motor deficits reported were transient, and no significant difference was identified between the groups. The LLIF fusion rate was 100%, and the TLIF 96%, one pseudarthrosis required reoperation and was the only one reported in the follow-up of the two groups. Pain, disability, and quality of life scores were significantly improved from baseline in both groups. Radiographically, the disc height improved significantly in both groups in all evaluations, however, there was a greater postoperative increase in the central area of the spinal canal in the TLIF, and the LLIF group presented subsidence at the two-year follow-up.

Lumbar fusion techniques in degenerative spondylolisthesis should be individualized to the clinical and imaging characteristics of each patient. These publications present data that indicate that lateral and transforaminal fusion have fewer complications compared to PLIF³² (Table 1).

Among the surgical techniques considered for the management of degenerative spondylolisthesis; Decompression without fusion is considered the less invasive technique than fusion with and without instrumentation. This technique reduces the morbidity and mortality associated with spinal fusion in older patients.^{36,37,38,39,40} The one-year readmission rate of patients undergoing lumbar decompression with and without fusion is 9.7 and 7.2%, respectively.⁴¹ It has been found that 69% of patients report satisfactory results with decompression without fusion, and 31% present unsatisfactory results. A report with 10-year follow-up, of a group of patients with an average age of 67 years, with a diagnosis of grade I-II degenerative spondylolisthesis a decompression was performed, 69% of the patients reported excellent results and concluded that non-fusion decompression procedures provide adequate results in a select group of elderly patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis.⁴² Another study of patients with spinal stenosis who underwent laminotomy or laminectomy included a subgroup of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis without finding data of instability in post-laminotomy patients by preserving the dynamics of the segment by maintaining the integrity of the posterior capsule-ligament complex vs three postoperative laminectomy patients who developed instability.⁴³

Other studies report unfavorable results after decompression without fusion. Modhia U et al.⁴¹ reported that 45% had good results of decompression without fusion, and 55% had poor or unsatisfactory results. In contrast, 63% who underwent decompression with posterolateral fusion in situ had satisfactory results. Their study suggests that decompression has better results when a non-instrumented fusion of the segment is added.⁴⁴

A problem related to non-instrumented in situ fusion is the inability to restore normal lumbar lordosis, particularly when there are involving multiple segments. It has been shown that an in situ fusion that produces kyphosis or hypo lordosis increases the mobility of the adjacent joints and this may be a factor that contributes to the degeneration of the adjacent segment after fusion.⁴⁵ The manifestations in the degeneration of the adjacent segment can present as symptomatic or asymptomatic degeneration, stress or compression fractures of the adjacent vertebra due to bone fragility secondary to osteoporosis that some patients have, for which some authors recommend the use of decompression and fusion without instrumentation and not fixation with the use of implants, always evaluating the needs and expectations of each patient and remembering that as far as possible, the purpose of surgical treatment is to release nerve compression, reduce listhesis to restore sagittal balance, perform a fixation to stabilize and place a bone graft to achieve arthrodesis of the segment. In an attempt to avoid the degeneration of the adjacent segment, Rosales-Olivarez et al.⁴⁶ perform studies between the posterolateral fusion technique with the INO plate and circumferential fusion with the INO plate and intersomatic screw plus in patients with a diagnosis of degenerative spondylolisthesis. In their results, both groups improved listhesis, function, and pain. The INO plate + posterolateral fusion (PLF) favors with flexibility and reduces intervertebral height loss in grade 1 or two pre-surgical listhesis, while the use of the INO plate + intersomatic screw + PLF reduces listhesis and decreases the loss of height in listhesis grade 3 or 4. Meanwhile, Juárez-Jiménez et al.⁴⁷ studied two groups of patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis operated with the circumferential arthrodesis technique. In 23 patients, a dynamic stabilization system was placed in the overlying segment (group L), they show in the results observed at five years that the ligamentoplasty does not prevent the degeneration of the adjacent segment.

As results are increasingly in favor of surgery for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis, research is focusing on the amount of surgery needed. The literature supports that fusion is necessary to achieve the best and long-lasting results; however, the debate now seems to have focused on the best way to achieve it. Zdeblick⁴⁸ and colleagues compared non-instrumented posterolateral fusion and two different types of instrumentation, the results revealed a fusion rate of 65% seen with non-instrumented fusions, a fusion rate of 77% with the use of semi-rigid instrumentation, and 95% with the use of rigid fixation.

The addition of anterior column support or 360-degree fusion has many theoretical benefits. Authors propose that anterior spine support improves fusion rates by increasing the surface area available for fusion, offers indirect decompression, and helps restore normal lumbar lordosis. Intersomatic fusion has become a popular method in the treatment of spondylolisthesis, with used ranges from 14% in 1999 to 37% in 2011.⁴⁹ There are several ways to achieve anterior support, each with its own benefits and a unique set of complications²¹ (Figure 3).

When planning a surgical procedure, the degree of osteoligamentary resection necessary to achieve decompression, the degree of listhesis, the segmental instability, the degree of disc degeneration, the severity of the pain, the spinopelvic balance, the inherent surgery risks and the characteristics of the patient must be taken into account to make the best decision. The surgical strategy must be individualized to achieve an adequate fusion with the minimum of possible risks.⁵⁰ The purpose of interbody fusion is to improve the rate of success in surgery. However, improving the rate of fusion with these methods has no direct relationship with the degree of clinical improvement.⁵¹ Another important factor while planning surgery is if it involves a complex procedure, are considered a complex procedure those that involves more than two levels or a 360^o arthrodesis. These procedures report greater morbidity, a higher number of serious complications, and a higher rate of rehospitalization in the first 30 days after surgery, as well as a more expensive cost compared to patients who underwent a simple decompression or a decompression with a simple fusion.

CONCLUSION

Surgery offers several potential benefits in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis, but the existing data do not strongly support its benefit in all patients. They don't conclusively identify an optimal technique. A decision must be made based on the experience of the surgeon, the clinical and imaging parameters for the selection of the most appropriate approach and fusion method.

REFERENCES

1. Steffee AD, Sitkowski DJ. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and plates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; 227: 99-102.

2. Kalichman L, Hunter DJ. Diagnosis and conservative management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17(3): 327-335.

3. Frymoyer JW. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1994; 2(1): 9-15.

4. Vibert BT, Sliva CD, Herkowitz HN. Treatment of instability and spondylolisthesis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 443: 222-7.

5. Buttermann GR. Treatment of lumbar disc herniation: epidural steroid injection compared with discectomy: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(4): 670-9.

6. Cuckler JM, Bernini P, Wiesel SW, Booth JRE, Rothman RH, Pickens GT. The use of epidural steroids in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985; 67(1): 63-6.

7. Fukusaki M, Kobayashi I, Hara T, Sumikawa K. Symptoms of spinal stenosis do not improve after epidural steroid injection. Clin J Pain. 1998; 14(2): 148-51.

8. Rosen CD, Kahanovitz N, Bernstein R, Viola K. A retrospective analysis of the efficacy of epidural steroid injections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; 228: 270-2.

9. Wang JC, Lin E, Brodke DS, Youssef JA. Epidural injections for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar herniated discs. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002; 15(4): 269-72.

10. Zhai J, Zhang L, Li M, Tian Z, Tian Y, Zheng W, et al. Epidural injection with or without steroid in managing chronic low-back and lower extremity pain: a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials. Am J Ther. 2017; 24(3): e259-69.

11. Riew KD, Yin Y, Gilula L, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Lauryssen C, et al. The effect of nerve-root injections on the need for operative treatment of lumbar radicular pain: a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82(11): 1589-93.

12. Sencan S, Ozcan-Eksi EE, Cil H, Tay B, Berven S, Burch S, et al. The effect of transforaminal epidural steroid injections in patients with spondylolisthesis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017; 30(4): 841-6.

13. Article O, Park CJ, Shin YD, Lim SW, Bae YM. The effect of facet joint injection on lumbar spinal stenosis with radiculopathy. Pak J Med Sci. 2018; 34(4): 968-73.

14. Hwang SY, Lee JW, Lee GY, Kang HS. Lumbar facet joint injection: feasibility as an alternative method in high-risk patients. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23(11): 3153-60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2921-z.

15. Shim E, Lee JW, Lee E, Im T, Kang Y, Ahn JM, et al. Facet joint injection versus epidural steroid injection for lumbar spinal stenosis: intra-individual study. Clin Radiol. 2017; 72(1): 96.e7-14.

16. Stasinopoulos D. Treatment of spondylolysis with external electrical stimulation in young athletes: a critical literature review. Br J Sports Med. 2004; 38(3): 352-4.

17. Fellander-Tsai L, Micheli LJ. Treatment of spondylolysis with external electrical stimulation and bracing in adolescent athletes: a report of two cases. Clin J Sport Med. 1998; 8(3): 232-3.

18. Pettine KA, Salib RM, Walker SG. External electrical stimulation and bracing for treatment of spondylolysis. A case report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(4): 436-9.

19. Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH. Lumbar segmental instability. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999.

20. Cruz-Medina E, Coronado-Zarco R, Arellano-Hernández A, Nava-Bringas TI, Rodríguez-Leyva JA, Esparza-Ramos SB. Adaptación al español para la población mexicana con radiculopatía lumbar de la escala de evaluación estandarizada del dolor (StEP). Acta Ortop Mex. 2014; 28(4): 233-9.

21. Trial R. Who should undergo surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(21): 1799-811.

22. Ilyas H, Udo-Inyang IJ, Savage J. Lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis: a review of the SPORT literature. Clin Spine Surg. 2019; 32(7): 272-8.

23. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Tosteson ANA, Blood EA, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356(22): 2257-70.

24. Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg. 1953; 10(2): 154-68.

25. Cloward RB. Lesions of the intervertebral disks and their treatment by interbody fusion methods. The painful disk. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1963; 27: 51-77. Available from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/14021789.

26. King D. Internal fixation for lumbosacral fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1948; 30A(3): 560-5.

27. Roy-Camille R, Roy-Camille M, Demeulenaere C. Osteosynthesis of dorsal, lumbar, and lumbosacral spine with metallic plates screwed into vertebral pedicles and articular apophyses. Presse Med. 1970; 78(32): 1447-8.

28. Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982; 120(3): 343-7.

29. Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J. Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(1): 26-32.

30. Yan DL, Pei F, Li J, Soo C. Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17(10): 1311-6.

31. Liu J, Deng H, Long X, Chen X, Xu R, Liu Z. A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2016; 25(5): 1575-80.

32. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg. 2015; 3(1): 2-18.

33. Bertagnoli R, Vazquez RJ. The AnteroLateral transPsoatic approach (ALPA): a new technique for implanting prosthetic disc-nucleus devices. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003; 16(4): 398-404.

34. Pawar AY, Hughes AP, Sama AA, Girardi FP, Lebl DR, Cammisa FP. A comparative study of lateral lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine J. 2015; 9(5): 668-74.

35. Norton RP, Bianco K, Klifto C, Errico TJ, Bendo JA. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: an analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample database. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(15): 1219-27.

36. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010; 303(13): 1259-65.

37. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ, Ciol MA. Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine. The influence of age, diagnosis, and procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992; 74(4): 536-43.

38. Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ. Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(11): 1463-70.

39. Oldridge N, Yuan Z, Stoll JE, Rimm A. Lumbar spine surgery and mortality among Medicare beneficiaries, 1986. Am J Public Health. 1994; 84(8): 1292-8.

40. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Haselkorn J, Kent D, Ciol MA, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA. 1992; 268(7): 907-11.

41. Modhia U, Takemoto S, Braid-Forbes MJ, Weber M, Berven SH. Readmission rates after decompression surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis among medicare beneficiaries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(7): 591-6.

42. Epstein NE. Decompression in the surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: advantages of a conservative approach in 290 patients. J Spinal Disord. 1998; 11(2): 116-22.

43. Postacchini F, Cinotti G, Perugia D, Gumina S. The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993; 75(3): 386-92.

44. Feffer HL, Wiesel SAMW, Cuckler JM, Rothman RH. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: to fuse or not to fuse. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1985; 10(3): 287-9.

45. Akamaru T, Kawahara N, Yoon ST, Minamide A, Kim KS, Tomita K, et al. Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments: a biomechanical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(14): 1560-6.

46. Rosales-Olivares LM, Ruiz-Morfín A, Alpízar-Aguirre A. Repercusión en la estabilidad del segmento suprayacente después de la fijación de la espondilolistesis. Estudio comparativo de dos sistemas. Cir Cir. 2006; 74(1): 27-35.

47. Juárez-Jiménez HG, Zarate-Kalfópulos B, Alpizar-Aguirre A, et al. Utilidad de la ligamentoplastía para la prevención de la artrodesis en espondilolistesis lumbar degenerativa. Reporte preliminar. Acta Ortop Mex. 2013; 27(5): 324-30.

48. Zdeblick TA. A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(8): 983-91.

49. Kepler CK, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Anderson DG, Rihn JA, Albert TJ, et al. National trends in the use of fusion techniques to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39(19): 1584-9.

50. Resnick DK, Watters WC, Sharan A, Mummaneni P V, Dailey AT, Wang JC, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: lumbar fusion for stenosis with spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 21(1): 54-61.

51. Wang JC, Dailey AT, Mummaneni P V, Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 8: lumbar fusion for disc herniation and radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 21(1): 48-53.

52. Phan K, Mobbs RJ. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion for revision of non-union following prior posterior surgery: a case report. Orthop Surg. 2015; 7(4): 364-7.

AFFILIATIONS

¹ Coordinación de Investigación.

² Ortopedista, Cirujano de Columna.

³ Jefe de Servicio de Cirugía de Columna.

⁴ Adscrito del Servicio Cirugía de Columna.

⁵ Jefe de División de Cirugía de Columna.

CORRESPONDENCE

Dr. Alejandro Reyes Sánchez. E-mail: alereyes@inr.gob.mx