Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 5/2016

01-05-2016 | Original Article

Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up

Authors: José I. Maruenda, Carlos Barrios, Felipe Garibo, Borja Maruenda

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 5/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This retrospective study analyzes long-term outcomes (15 years) of circumferential lumbar fusion (CF) for degenerative spine disease using instrumented PLIF. The occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and the reintervention rate was specially focused.

Methods

A series of 73 patients who underwent CF (1–3 levels) was reviewed. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, at 2, 5, 10 and 15 years after surgery with static and dynamic radiographic studies, CT scan and MRI. Patients completed also the Oswestry-Disability index (ODI), the VAS score, and the patient self-satisfaction questionnaire.

Results

At 2-year follow-up, there was a decrease in the average ODI score (from 72.3 ± 16.4 preop to 30.5 ± 6.2). At 10- and 15-year follow-up, ODI scores return to preoperative scores in patients without revision surgery. The 82.8 % of patients referred an excellentgood self-satisfaction rate at this time. At 5-year follow-up, seven patients (9.6 %) required reoperation because of symptomatic ASD. At 10-year follow-up, reoperated patients increased to 24.6 % (18 cases). Excellent and good self-satisfaction rate decreased to 41.1 % at this time. Radiological ASD was then detected in 37 cases (50.7 %). At 15-year follow-up, nine patients were lost and a total of 24 (37.5 %) required a new surgical treatment because of ASD. The occurrence of revision surgery because of symptomatic ASD was highly dependent of the age of patients at the first surgery and the number of fused levels.

Conclusion

Circumferential lumbar fusion provides good clinical results at short-term follow-up. From 2- to 15-year follow-up, outcome worsened significantly. The high rate of ASD occurrence and reintervention questions the reliability of this technique for lumbar fusion.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P et al (2001) 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 26:2521–2532CrossRefPubMed Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P et al (2001) 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 26:2521–2532CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P et al (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 27:1131–1141CrossRefPubMed Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P et al (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 27:1131–1141CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA et al (2007) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg 7:379–386 Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA et al (2007) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg 7:379–386
4.
go back to reference Gertzbein SD, Betz R, Clements D et al (1996) Semirigid instrumentation in the management of lumbar spinal conditions combined with circumferential fusion: a multicenter study. Spine 21:1918–1925CrossRefPubMed Gertzbein SD, Betz R, Clements D et al (1996) Semirigid instrumentation in the management of lumbar spinal conditions combined with circumferential fusion: a multicenter study. Spine 21:1918–1925CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Kozak JA, O’Brien JP (1990) Simultaneous combined anterior and posterior fusion: an independent analysis of a treatment for the disabled low back pain patient. Spine 15:322–328CrossRefPubMed Kozak JA, O’Brien JP (1990) Simultaneous combined anterior and posterior fusion: an independent analysis of a treatment for the disabled low back pain patient. Spine 15:322–328CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Ht Hee, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME et al (2001) Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord 14:533–540CrossRef Ht Hee, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME et al (2001) Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord 14:533–540CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Steffee AD, Brantigan JW (1993) The variable screw placement spinal fixation system. Report of a prospective study of 250 patients enrolled in food and drug administration clinical trials. Spine 18:1160–1172CrossRefPubMed Steffee AD, Brantigan JW (1993) The variable screw placement spinal fixation system. Report of a prospective study of 250 patients enrolled in food and drug administration clinical trials. Spine 18:1160–1172CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Enker P, Steffee AD (1994) Interbody fusion and instrumentation. Clin Orthop 300:90–101PubMed Enker P, Steffee AD (1994) Interbody fusion and instrumentation. Clin Orthop 300:90–101PubMed
9.
go back to reference Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D (2001) Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 10:314–319CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D (2001) Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 10:314–319CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Cutler AR, Siddiqui S, Mohan AL et al (2006) Comparison of polyetheretherketone cages with femoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg 5:534–539 Cutler AR, Siddiqui S, Mohan AL et al (2006) Comparison of polyetheretherketone cages with femoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg 5:534–539
11.
go back to reference La Rosa G, Conti A, Cacciola F et al (2003) Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: dose posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion? J Neurosurg (Spine 2) 99(2 suppl):143–150CrossRef La Rosa G, Conti A, Cacciola F et al (2003) Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: dose posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion? J Neurosurg (Spine 2) 99(2 suppl):143–150CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Soegaard R, Bunger CE, Christiansen T et al (2007) Circumferential fusion is dominant over posterolateral fusion in a long-term perspective: cost-utility evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in severe, chronic low back pain. Spine 32:2405–2414CrossRefPubMed Soegaard R, Bunger CE, Christiansen T et al (2007) Circumferential fusion is dominant over posterolateral fusion in a long-term perspective: cost-utility evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in severe, chronic low back pain. Spine 32:2405–2414CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R et al (2006) Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 31:2875–2880CrossRefPubMed Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R et al (2006) Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 31:2875–2880CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Madan SS, Boeree NR (2003) Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusión. Eur Spine J 12:567–575CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Madan SS, Boeree NR (2003) Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusión. Eur Spine J 12:567–575CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Suk S, Lee C-K, Kim W-J, Lee J-H, Cho K-J, Kim H-G (1997) Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:210–220CrossRefPubMed Suk S, Lee C-K, Kim W-J, Lee J-H, Cho K-J, Kim H-G (1997) Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:210–220CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Gibson JN, Grant IC, Waddell G (1999) The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine 24:1820–1832CrossRefPubMed Gibson JN, Grant IC, Waddell G (1999) The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine 24:1820–1832CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV (2001) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery 48:569–575CrossRefPubMed Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV (2001) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery 48:569–575CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Eiskjaer SP et al (2002) Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients. Spine 27:2674–2683CrossRefPubMed Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Eiskjaer SP et al (2002) Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients. Spine 27:2674–2683CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Kim KT, Lee SH, Lee YH, Bae SC, Suk KS (2006) Clinical outcomes of three fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spine 31:1351–1357CrossRefPubMed Kim KT, Lee SH, Lee YH, Bae SC, Suk KS (2006) Clinical outcomes of three fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spine 31:1351–1357CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee DH, Kim YT, Lee HS (2011) Fusion rates of instrumented lumbar spinal arthrodesis according to surgi-cal approach: a systematic review of randomized trials. Clin Orthop Surg 3:39–47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee DH, Kim YT, Lee HS (2011) Fusion rates of instrumented lumbar spinal arthrodesis according to surgi-cal approach: a systematic review of randomized trials. Clin Orthop Surg 3:39–47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Ekman P, Moller H, Tullberg T, Neumann P, Hedlund R (2007) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion inadult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine 32:2178–2183CrossRefPubMed Ekman P, Moller H, Tullberg T, Neumann P, Hedlund R (2007) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion inadult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine 32:2178–2183CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Nakai S, Yoshizawa H, Kobayashi S (1999) Long-term follow-up study of posterior lumbar interbodey fusion. J Spinal Disord 12:293–299CrossRefPubMed Nakai S, Yoshizawa H, Kobayashi S (1999) Long-term follow-up study of posterior lumbar interbodey fusion. J Spinal Disord 12:293–299CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, Vorwald P, Jabbour P, Bono CM, Goldfarb N, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 33:1701–1707CrossRefPubMed Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, Vorwald P, Jabbour P, Bono CM, Goldfarb N, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 33:1701–1707CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Hassett G, Hart DJ, Manek NJ et al (2003) Risk factors for progression of lumbar spine disc degeneration: the Chingford study. Arthritis Rheum 48:3112–3117CrossRefPubMed Hassett G, Hart DJ, Manek NJ et al (2003) Risk factors for progression of lumbar spine disc degeneration: the Chingford study. Arthritis Rheum 48:3112–3117CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Ghiselli G, Wang J, Bhatia N et al (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Jt Surg Am 86:1497–1503 Ghiselli G, Wang J, Bhatia N et al (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Jt Surg Am 86:1497–1503
26.
go back to reference Heo Y, Park JH, Seong HY et al (2015) Symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration at the L3–4 level after fusion surgery at the L4–5 level: evaluation of the risk factors and 10-year incidence. Eur Spine J 24:2474–2480CrossRefPubMed Heo Y, Park JH, Seong HY et al (2015) Symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration at the L3–4 level after fusion surgery at the L4–5 level: evaluation of the risk factors and 10-year incidence. Eur Spine J 24:2474–2480CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Choi KC, Kim JS, Shim HK et al (2014) Changes in the adjacent segment 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1845–1854CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Choi KC, Kim JS, Shim HK et al (2014) Changes in the adjacent segment 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1845–1854CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Kim TH, Lee BH, Moon SH, Lee SH, Lee HM (2013) Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration after successful posterolateral fusion with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 10-year follow-up. Spine J 13:1208–1216CrossRefPubMed Kim TH, Lee BH, Moon SH, Lee SH, Lee HM (2013) Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration after successful posterolateral fusion with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 10-year follow-up. Spine J 13:1208–1216CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Di Martino A, Cosimo Quattrocchi C et al (2014) Estimating the risk for symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: analysis from a cohort of patients undergoing revision surgery. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 6):S693–S698CrossRef Di Martino A, Cosimo Quattrocchi C et al (2014) Estimating the risk for symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: analysis from a cohort of patients undergoing revision surgery. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 6):S693–S698CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up
Authors
José I. Maruenda
Carlos Barrios
Felipe Garibo
Borja Maruenda
Publication date
01-05-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4469-5

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

European Spine Journal 5/2016 Go to the issue