Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-05-2014 | Review Article

Surgery in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications, outcomes and complications. A systematic review

Authors: F. Steiger, H.-J. Becker, C. J. Standaert, F. Balague, J.-P. Vader, F. Porchet, A. F. Mannion

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 5/2014

Abstract

Purpose

This systematic review summarises the literature on patient selection, decision-making, effectiveness and outcomes in the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS).

Introduction

In daily practice, decision-making in the treatment of LDS is challenging. There is little consensus on either the precise indications or prognostic factors for any specific therapy (operative or non-operative).

Methods

We searched for LDS trials published between 01.01.1990 and 16.11.2011 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Cinahl. Two independent reviewers selected studies according to the inclusion criteria. Data were then extracted by two of the authors. Quality assessment was performed using the Downs and Black list for the clinical trials/studies and AMSTAR for the reviews.

Results

Data synthesis: 21 papers met the inclusion criteria (2 studies comprising both a RCT and a concurrent observational analysis, 1 RCT, 6 prospective studies, 8 retrospective studies, 3 reviews, 1 review guideline). The quality of the clinical studies was on average “fair” [mean score 15.6 points (range 10–19) out of 24 points (Downs and Black)]. The quality of the reviews ranged from 1 to 7 out of 11 points with an average of 5 points (AMSTAR). The study outcomes could not be subject to meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of study design and variable measure used.

Conclusions

Despite there being many articles describing and/or comparing different surgical options for LDS, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions concerning clear indications for specific types of surgical treatment, predictors of outcome or complication rates. There remains a need to establish a decision-making tool to facilitate daily clinical practice and to assure appropriate treatment for patients with LDS.

Available only for authorised users

Newman PH (1955) Spondylolisthesis, its cause and effect. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 16(5):305–323PubMedCentralPubMed

O’Rourke MR, Grobler LJ (1998) L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications and technique for operative management. Iowa Orthop J 18:76–86PubMedCentralPubMed

Farfan HF, Osteria V, Lamy C (1976) The mechanical etiology of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 117:40–55PubMed

Farfan HF (1980) The pathological anatomy of degenerative spondylolisthesis. A cadaver study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 5(5):412–418CrossRef

Chen IR, Wei TS (2009) Disc height and lumbar index as independent predictors of degenerative spondylolisthesis in middle-aged women with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(13):1402–1409CrossRef

Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2003) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Treatment strategies and indications for surgery. Orthop Clin N Am 34(2):281–295CrossRef

Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2005) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: Review of current trends and controversies. Spine 30(6):S71–S81PubMedCrossRef

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

Faldini C et al (2007) Surgical treatment of symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis by decompression and instrumented fusion. J Orthop Traumatol 8(3):128–133CrossRef

10.

Weinstein JN et al (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 Jt Surg Am 91(6):1295–1304CrossRef

11.

Weinstein JN et al (2007) Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 356(22):2257–2270PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

12.

Mardjetko SM, Connolly PJ, Shott S (1994) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970–1993. Spine 19(Suppl 20):2256S–2265SPubMedCrossRef

13.

Bridwell KH et al (1993) The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 6(6):461–472PubMedCrossRef

14.

Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52(6):377–384PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

15.

Shea BJ et al (2007) External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS ONE 2(12):e1350PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

16.

Sears W (2005) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: restoration of sagittal balance using insert-and-rotate interbody spacers. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc 5(2):170–179CrossRef

17.

Okuda S et al (2006) Surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. [Reprint in J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2007 Sep; 89 Suppl 2 Pt.2:310–20; PMID: 17768224]. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88 (12): 2714–2720

18.

Abdul QR et al (2011) Clinico-radiological profile of indirect neural decompression using cage or auto graft as interbody construct in posterior lumbar interbody fusion in spondylolisthesis: Which is better? J Craniovertebral Junction Spine 2(1):12–16CrossRef

19.

Adogwa O et al (2011) Cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis.[Erratum appears in J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Aug; 15(2):211; PMID: 21682560]. J Neurosurg Spine 15(2):138–143PubMedCrossRef

20.

Kristof RA et al (2002) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis-induced radicular compression: nonfusion-related decompression in selected patients without hypermobility on flexion-extension radiographs. J Neurosurg 97(3 Suppl):281–286PubMed

21.

Kornblum MB et al (2004) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine 29(7):726–733 discussion 733–4PubMedCrossRef

22.

Abdu WA et al (2009) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(21):2351–2360CrossRef

23.

Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT (1991) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 73(6):802–808

24.

Fischgrund JS et al (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 22(24):2807–2812PubMedCrossRef

25.

Tormenti MJ et al (2012) Perioperative surgical complications of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center experience. J Neurosurg Spine 16(1):44–50PubMedCrossRef

26.

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

27.

Watters WC 3rd et al (2009) An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc 9(7):609–614CrossRef

28.

Yan D-L et al (2008) Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17(10):1311–1316PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

29.

Boden SD et al (1996) Orientation of the lumbar facet joints: association with degenerative disc disease. J Bone Jt Surg Am 78(3):403–411

30.

Xu H, Tang H, Li Z (2009) Surgical treatment of adult degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the Han nationality. J Neurosurg Spine 10(5):496–499PubMedCrossRef

31.

Martin CR et al (2007) The surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Spine 32(16):1791–1798PubMedCrossRef

32.

Ghogawala Z et al (2004) Prospective outcomes evaluation after decompression with or without instrumented fusion for lumbar stenosis and degenerative Grade I spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 1(3):267–272PubMedCrossRef

33.

Carreon LY et al (2003) Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 85(11):2089–2092

Title: Surgery in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications, outcomes and complications. A systematic review
Authors: F. Steiger
H.-J. Becker
C. J. Standaert
F. Balague
J.-P. Vader
F. Porchet
A. F. Mannion
Publication date: 01-05-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 5/2014
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3144-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Surgery in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications, outcomes and complications. A systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2014

Can unilateral-approach minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion attain indirect contralateral decompression? A preliminary report of 66 MRI analysis

Mid- to long-term outcomes after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Is the 4 mm height of the vertebral artery groove really a limitation of C1 pedicle screw insertion?

Sacropelvic fixation versus fusion to the sacrum for spondylodesis in multilevel degenerative spine disease

Spine MR imaging features of subacute combined degeneration patients

Reviewer’s comment concerning “Does sagittal position of the CTDR-related centre of rotation influence functional outcome? Prospective 2-year follow-up analysis” (doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3223-0 by P. Suchomel et al.)