Top

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Published in:

01-12-2017 | Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Pathology (HJ Kim and G Mundis, section editors)

Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Current Concepts and New Evidence

Authors: Andre M. Samuel, Harold G. Moore, Matthew E. Cunningham

Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | Issue 4/2017

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Current guidelines for the optimal treatment degenerative spondylolisthesis are weak and based on limited high-quality evidence.

Recent Findings

There is some moderate evidence that decompression alone may be a feasible treatment with lower surgical morbidity and similar outcomes to fusion when performed in a select population with a low-grade slip. Similarly, addition of interbody fusion may be best suited to a subset of patients with high-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis, although this remains controversial. Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly being utilized for both decompression and fusion surgeries with more and more studies showing similar outcomes and lower postoperative morbidity for patients. This will likely be an area of continued intense research. Finally, the role of spondylolisthesis reduction will likely be determined as further investigation into optimal sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters is conducted. Future identification of ideal thresholds for sagittal vertical axis and slip angle that will prevent progression and reoperation will play an important role in surgical treatment planning.

Summary

Current evidence supports surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. While posterolateral spinal fusion remains the treatment of choice, the use of interbodies and decompressions without fusion may be efficacious in certain populations. However, additional high-quality evidence is needed, especially in newer areas of practice such as minimally invasive techniques and sagittal balance correction.

Matz PG, Meagher RJ, Lamer T, Tontz WL Jr, Annaswamy TM, Cassidy RC, et al. Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J. 2016;16(3):439–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.11.055.CrossRefPubMed

Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Rovsing H, Monrad H, Gebuhr P. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: an epidemiological perspective: the Copenhagen Osteoarthritis Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(1):120–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000250979.12398.96.CrossRef

Sclafani JA, Constantin A, Ho PS, Akuthota V, Chan L. Descriptive analysis of spinal neuroaxial injections, surgical interventions, and physical therapy utilization for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis within medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(4):240–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001724.CrossRef

Gerling MC, Leven D, Passias PG, Lafage V, Bianco K, Lee A, et al. Risks factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a subanalysis of the 8 year data from the SPORT trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002196.

• Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgstrom F, Fritzell P, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):1413–23. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1513721. In a randomized controlled trial of 133 patients, spinal decompression versus fusion was compared for DS. There was no significant difference in outcomes at 2 years except for lower operative time and hospital length of stay with decompression. CrossRefPubMed

• Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Tosteson AN, Blood EA, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2257–70. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa070302. The SPORT trial randomized 204 patients with DS into operative and nonoperative cohorts. The as-treated analysis demonstrated that there was improvement in pain and functioning with surgical treatment. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

• Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, Dai F, Terrin N, Magge SN, et al. Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):1424–34. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1508788. In a randomized controlled trial of 66 patients, spinal fusion had significantly greater improvement in SF-36 at 2-, 3-, and 4-year follow-up and less than half the rate of reoperation. CrossRefPubMed

• Challier V, Boissiere L, Obeid I, Vital JM, Castelain JE, Benard A, et al. One-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and posterior approach: is transforaminal lateral interbody fusion mandatory? A randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(8):531–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001857. In a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 60 patients, there was no difference in pain or disability between postolateral spinal fusion and TLIF for DS. However, fusion rate was significantly higher with TLIF. CrossRef

• Isaacs RE, Sembrano JN, Tohmeh AG, Group SDS. Two-year comparative outcomes of MIS lateral and MIS transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Part II: radiographic findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(Suppl 8):S133–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001472. In a randomized controlled trial of 55 patients with DS, radiographically TLIF demonstrated better central canal decompression while XLIF demonstrated better foraminal decompression

10.

• Sembrano JN, Tohmeh A, Isaacs R, Group SDS. Two-year comparative outcomes of MIS lateral and MIS transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Part I: clinical findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(Suppl 8):S123–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001471. In a randomized controlled trial of 55 patients with DS, TLIF and XLIF had similar clinical outcomes.

11.

Matsunaga S, Ijiri K, Hayashi K. Nonsurgically managed patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a 10- to 18-year follow-up study. J Neurosurg. 2000;93(2 Suppl):194–8.PubMed

12.

Pearson AM, Lurie JD, Blood EA, Frymoyer JW, Braeutigam H, An H, et al. Spine patient outcomes research trial: radiographic predictors of clinical outcomes after operative or nonoperative treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(25):2759–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818e2d8b.CrossRef

13.

Matsudaira K, Yamazaki T, Seichi A, Takeshita K, Hoshi K, Kishimoto J, et al. Spinal stenosis in grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study of outcomes following laminoplasty and laminectomy with instrumented spinal fusion. J Orthop Sci. 2005;10(3):270–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-005-0887-7.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Musluman AM, Cansever T, Yilmaz A, Cavusoglu H, Yuce I, Aydin Y. Midterm outcome after a microsurgical unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(1):68–76. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.7.SPINE11222.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Aihara T, Toyone T, Aoki Y, Ozawa T, Inoue G, Hatakeyama K, et al. Surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study of outcomes following decompression with fusion and microendoscopic decompression. J Musculoskelet Res. 2012;15(4):1250020.CrossRef

16.

Inui T, Murakami M, Nagao N, Miyazaki K, Matsuda K, Tominaga Y, et al. Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: changes in surgical indications and comparison of instrumented fusion with two surgical decompression procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(1):E15–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001688.CrossRef

17.

Kim S, Mortaz Hedjri S, Coyte PC, Rampersaud YR. Cost-utility of lumbar decompression with or without fusion for patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J. 2012;12(1):44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.10.004.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Alvin MD, Lubelski D, Abdullah KG, Whitmore RG, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. Cost-utility analysis of instrumented fusion versus decompression alone for grade I L4-L5 spondylolisthesis at 1-year follow-up: a pilot study. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(2):E80–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000103.PubMed

19.

Ahmad S, Hamad A, Bhalla A, Turner S, Balain B, Jaffray D. The outcome of decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(2):414–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4637-7.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Cheung J, Cheung P, Cheung K, Luk K. Decompression without fusion for low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(1):75–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Kitchen WJ, Mohamed M, Bhojak M, Wilby M. Neurogenic claudication secondary to degenerative spondylolisthesis: is fusion always necessary? Br J Neurosurg. 2016;30(6):662–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2016.1206181.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Blood EA, Tosteson AN, et al. 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 Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1295–304. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00913.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Park DK, An HS, Lurie JD, Zhao W, Tosteson A, Tosteson TD, et al. Does multilevel lumbar stenosis lead to poorer outcomes? A subanalysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) lumbar stenosis study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(4):439–46. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bdafb9.CrossRef

24.

Rihn JA, Radcliff K, Hilibrand AS, Anderson DT, Zhao W, Lurie J, et al. Does obesity affect outcomes of treatment for lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis? Analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(23):1933–46. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31825e21b2.CrossRef

25.

Mardjetko SM, Connolly PJ, Shott S. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970-1993. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(20 Suppl):2256S–65S.CrossRef

26.

Martin CR, Gruszczynski AT, Braunsfurth HA, Fallatah SM, O'Neil J, Wai EK. The surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(16):1791–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3180bc219e.CrossRef

27.

Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(6):802–8.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Austevoll IM, Gjestad R, Brox JI, Solberg TK, Storheim K, Rekeland F, et al. The effectiveness of decompression alone compared with additional fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a pragmatic comparative non-inferiority observational study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(2):404–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4683-1.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Park JH, Hyun SJ, Roh SW, Rhim SC. A comparison of unilateral laminectomy with bilateral decompression and fusion surgery in the treatment of grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Acta Neurochir. 2012;154(7):1205–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-012-1394-1.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA, O'Brien MF, Lenke LG, Baldus C. The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord. 1993;6(6):461–72.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Rousseau MA, Lazennec JY, Bass EC, Saillant G. Predictors of outcomes after posterior decompression and fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(1):55–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0703-7.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Ha KY, Na KH, Shin JH, Kim KW. Comparison of posterolateral fusion with and without additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(4):229–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3180eaa202.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Ghasemi AA. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis: an attempt to evaluate the superiority of one method over the other. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;150:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.08.017.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kuraishi S, Takahashi J, Mukaiyama K, Shimizu M, Ikegami S, Futatsugi T, et al. Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(1):143–52. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.1.143.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Pooswamy S, Muralidharagopalan NR, Subbaiah S. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in grade I/II spondylolisthesis. Indian J Orthop. 2017;51(2):131–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.201703.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Kim E, Chotai S, Stonko D, Wick J, Sielatycki A, Devin CJ. A retrospective review comparing two-year patient-reported outcomes, costs, and healthcare resource utilization for TLIF vs. PLF for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5142-3.

37.

Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Ghogawala Z, Mummaneni PV, McGirt MJ, Asher AL. Modeled cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis using N(2)QOD data. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(6):916–21. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.10.SPINE15917.CrossRefPubMed

38.

McAnany SJ, Baird EO, Qureshi SA, Hecht AC, Heller JG, Anderson PA. Posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(23):E1408–E14. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001638.CrossRef

39.

Baker JF, Errico TJ, Kim Y, Razi A. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: contemporary review of the role of interbody fusion. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27(2):169–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-016-1885-5.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Abdu WA, Lurie JD, Spratt KF, Tosteson AN, Zhao W, Tosteson TD, et al. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(21):2351–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b8a829.CrossRef

41.

Dhoke P, Goss B, Mehta S, Stanojevic S, Williams R. In the era of recombinant BMP, does additional anterior stabilization add value to a posterolateral fusion? Evid Based Spine Care J. 2012;3(4):21–5. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1328139.PubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Fujimori T, Le H, Schairer WW, Berven SH, Qamirani E, Hu SS. Does transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion have advantages over posterolateral lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis? Global Spine J. 2015;5(2):102–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1396432.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Gille O, Challier V, Parent H, Cavagna R, Poignard A, Faline A, et al. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: cohort of 670 patients, and proposal of a new classification. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(6 Suppl):S311–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2014.07.006.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Gottschalk MB, Premkumar A, Sweeney K, Boden SD, Heller J, Yoon ST, et al. Posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis with and without interbody arthrodesis for L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis: a comparative value analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(12):917–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000856.CrossRef

45.

Lee SH, Lee JH, Hong SW, Chung SE, Yoo SH, Lee HY. Spinopelvic alignment after interspinous soft stabilization with a tension band system in grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(15):E691–701. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d2607e.CrossRef

46.

Liao JC, Lu ML, Niu CC, Chen WJ, Chen LH. Surgical outcomes of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with anterior vacuum disc: can the intervertebral cage overcome intradiscal vacuum phenomenon and enhance posterolateral fusion? J Orthop Sci. 2014;19(6):851–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-014-0618-z.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Ohtori S, Koshi T, Yamashita M, Takaso M, Yamauchi K, Inoue G, et al. Single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion versus non-instrumented anterior interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis: a prospective study with a 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Sci. 2011;16(4):352–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-011-0088-5.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Owens RK 2nd, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD. Relative benefit of TLIF versus PSF stratified by diagnostic indication. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(3):144–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182867470.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Sato S, Yagi M, Machida M, Yasuda A, Konomi T, Miyake A, et al. Reoperation rate and risk factors of elective spinal surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine J. 2015;15(7):1536–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.009.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Harris EB, Sayadipour A, Massey P, Duplantier NL, Anderson DG. Mini-open versus open decompression and fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2011;40(12):E257–61.

51.

Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(6):1171–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2114-x.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Mori E, Okada S, Ueta T, Itaru Y, Maeda T, Kawano O, et al. Spinous process-splitting open pedicle screw fusion provides favorable results in patients with low back discomfort and pain compared to conventional open pedicle screw fixation over 1 year after surgery. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(4):745–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2146-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(8):479–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055cac.PubMed

54.

Cheng X, Zhang K, Sun X, Zhao C, Li H, Ni B, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Spine J. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.011.

55.

Scholler K, Alimi M, Cong GT, Christos P, Hartl R. Lumbar spinal stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of secondary fusion rates following open vs minimally invasive decompression. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(3):355–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyw091.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Lee TC. Reduction and stabilization without laminectomy for unstable degenerative spondylolisthesis: a preliminary report. Neurosurgery. 1994;35(6):1072–6.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Sears W. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: restoration of sagittal balance using insert-and-rotate interbody spacers. Spine J. 2005;5(2):170–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.05.257.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Bednar DA. Surgical management of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis via posterior reduction with minimal laminectomy. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002;15(2):105–9.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Fan G, Zhang H, Guan X, Gu G, Wu X, Hu A, et al. Patient-reported and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis with or without reduction: a comparative study. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;33:111–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2016.02.037.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy JP, Lafage V. Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(25):2224–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ee6bd4.CrossRef

61.

Schuller S, Charles YP, Steib JP. Sagittal spinopelvic alignment and body mass index in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(5):713–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1640-2.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Lamartina C, Berjano P, Petruzzi M, Sinigaglia A, Casero G, Cecchinato R, et al. Criteria to restore the sagittal balance in deformity and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(Suppl 1):S27–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2236-9.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Barrey C, Jund J, Perrin G, Roussouly P. Spinopelvic alignment of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(5):981–6; discussion 6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000303194.02921.30.

64.

Wang T, Wang H, Liu H, Ma L, Liu FY, Ding WY. Sagittal spinopelvic parameters in 2-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(50):e5417. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005417.CrossRef

65.

Mac-Thiong JM, Labelle H, Parent S, Hresko MT, Deviren V, Weidenbaum M, et al. Reliability and development of a new classification of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. Scoliosis. 2008;3:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-3-19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

66.

Mac-Thiong JM, Duong L, Parent S, Hresko MT, Dimar JR, Weidenbaum M, et al. Reliability of the Spinal Deformity Study Group classification of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(2):E95–102. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182233969.CrossRef

67.

Radovanovic I, Urquhart JC, Ganapathy V, Siddiqi F, Gurr KR, Bailey SI, et al. Influence of postoperative sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters on the outcome of patients surgically treated for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(4):448–53. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.9.SPINE1680.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Kim CH, Chung CK, Park SB, Yang SH, Kim JH. A change in lumbar sagittal alignment after single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with normal sagittal balance. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(7):291–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000179.PubMed

69.

Cho JH, Joo YS, Lim C, Hwang CJ, Lee DH, Lee CS. Effect of one- or two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion on global sagittal balance. Spine J. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.05.029.

Title: Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Current Concepts and New Evidence
Authors: Andre M. Samuel
Harold G. Moore
Matthew E. Cunningham
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine / Issue 4/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9442-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Current Concepts and New Evidence

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar decompressions and fusions

Lumbar Disc Herniation

Correction to: adjacent level disease-background and update based on disc replacement data

Treatment for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation

Management of Complex Anterior Shoulder Instability: a Case-Based Approach

Current Concepts in Rehabilitation for Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability