Caudad Insertion of Pedicle Screws Facilitates Interbody Distraction During Spondylolisthetic Vertebrae Restoration: A Retrospective Study
Tóm tắt
Based on the results of long-term clinical and radiological follow-up studies of decompression and fusion with internal fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS), we recognized that the direction of the pedicle screw affects the stability of the fixation. However, few studies have analyzed the role of pedicle screw insertion trajectory in disc height recovery after fusion. We therefore analyzed patients’ general information, clinical efficacy and sagittal, coronal and implant parameters to determine whether there is a correlation between the insertion trajectory of screws and the recovery of intervertebral space height, with the ultimate aim to provide a basis for improving the clinical efficacy and radiological outcomes of patients with DLS and to identify an optimal technique for spine surgeons that would benefit patients with spondylolisthesis. From May 2015 to October 2019, patients who underwent single-segment decompression and fusion with internal fixation for DLS at our department were screened for enrollment in the study. The clinical history, pre- and post-operative lumbar sagittal parameters, intervertebral height, rate of recovery from spondylolisthesis and pedicle screw angle of inpatients were recorded and followed up for at least 6 months. Clinical assessments included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for lower back and leg pain. Data on screw angle, fusion segment intervertebral space height and clinical outcome were the primary outputs. Pearson correlation and multivariate regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between the pedicle screw angle, the sagittal parameters of the fusion segment and clinical efficacy. A total of 50 patients were initially enrolled, two patients were lost to follow-up after 6 months, 48 patients (17 men, 31 women) were eventually enrolled, and the follow-up rate was 96%. At least 6 months after the operation, vertebral spondylolisthesis improved to varying degrees [> 80% in 17 cases (35.4%) and > 20% in 43 cases (87.5%), respectively]. Changes in disc height (DH) were significantly associated with lower pedicle screw angle, while lumbar lordosis and segment lordosis remained the same. Multivariate regression analysis showed a significant negative correlation between the upper and lower pedicle screw angles and the change in DH (P < 0.05). At 2 weeks post-operation, the VAS score for low back pain and the ODI had improved significantly compared to pre-operation (P < 0.05). These results suggest that the Caudad insertion trajectory technique of pedicle screws may be an ideal alternative for the treatment of DLS. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR): ChiCTR1800020368.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Lian XF, Hou TS, Xu JG, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for aged patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis: is intentional surgical reduction essential? Spine J. 2013;13(10):1183–9.
Audat ZM, Darwish F, Al Barbarawi MM, et al. Surgical management of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis; a randomized controlled study of the surgical fixation with and without reduction. Scoliosis. 2011;6(1):14.
Fan GX, Wang DD, Wu XB, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis: reduction fusion vs. in-situ fusion. J Spinal Surg. 2016;14(6):335–9.
France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, et al. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion: outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine. 1999;24(6):553–60.
Bourghli A, Aunoble S, Reebye O, et al. Correlation of clinical outcome and spinopelvic sagittal alignment after surgical treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(Suppl 5):663–8.
Tay KS, Bassi A, Yeo W, et al. Intraoperative reduction does not result in better outcomes in low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis with neurogenic symptoms after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion-a 5-year follow-up study. Spine J. 2016;16(2):182–90.
Stonecipher T, Wright S. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with facet-screw fixation. Spine. 1989;14(4):468–71.
West JL, Bradford DS, Ogilvie JW. Results of spinal arthrodesis with pedicle screw-plate fixation. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1991;73(8):1179–84.
Röllinghoff M, Schlüter-Brust K, Groos D, et al. Mid-range outcomes in 64 consecutive cases of multilevel fusion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2010;2(1):e3.
Wu ZX, Gong FT, Liu L, et al. A comparative study on screw loosening in osteoporotic lumbar spine fusion between expandable and conventional pedicle screws. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(4):471–6.
Galbusera F, Volkheimer D, Reitmaier S, et al. Pedicle screw loosening: a clinically relevant complication? Eur Spine J. 2015;24(5):1005–16.
Kim JB, Park SW, Lee YS, et al. The effects of spinopelvic parameters and paraspinal muscle degeneration on S1 screw loosening. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015;58(4):357–62.
Cardoso MJ, Dmitriev AE, Helgeson M, et al. Does superior-segment facet violation or laminectomy destabilize the adjacent level in lumbar transpedicular fixation? An in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(26):2868–73.
Kim HJ, Chun HJ, Kang KT, et al. The biomechanical effect of pedicle screws’ insertion angle and position on the superior adjacent segment in 1 segment lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(19):1637–44.
Bokov A, Bulkin A, Aleynik A, et al. Pedicle screws loosening in patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: potential risk factors and relative contribution. Glob Spine J. 2019;9(1):55–61.
Yuan Q, Xing YG, Tao JF, et al. The direction of pedicle screws in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae on stability of internal fixation. Shandong Pharm. 2009;49(20):19–22.
Cheung KM, Zhang YG, Lu DS, et al. Reduction of disc space distraction after anterior lumbar interbody fusion with autologous iliac crest graft. Spine. 2003;28(13):1385–9.
Li F, Zhan X, Xi X, et al. Do the positioning variables of the cage contribute to adjacent facet joint degeneration? Radiological and clinical analysis following intervertebral fusion. Ann Transl Med. 2021. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-7718.
Siepe CJ, Stosch-Wiechert K, Heider F, et al. Anterior stand-alone fusion revisited: a prospective clinical, X-ray and CT investigation. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(4):838–51.
Maigne JY, Lapeyre E, Morvan G, Chatellier G. Pain immediately upon sitting down and relieved by standing up is often associated with radiologic lumbar instability or marked anterior loss of disc space. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(12):1327–34.
Le TV, Vivas AC, Dakwar E, et al. The effect of the retroperitoneal transpsoas minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion on segmental and regional lumbar lordosis. Sci World J. 2012;2012:516706.
Schwab F, Dubey A, Pagala M, et al. Adult scoliosis: a health assessment analysis by SF-36. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(6):602–6.
Lazennec JY, Ramare S, Arafati N, et al. Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion:relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(1):47–55.
Matsudaira K, Yamazaki T, Seichi A, 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.
Aihara T, Toyone T, Aoki Y, 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.
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.
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.
Challier V, Boissiere L, Obeid I, 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.
Takahashi T, Hanakita J, Ohtake Y, et al. Current status of lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Neurol Med Chir. 2016;56(8):476–84.
Yuan Q, Han XG, Han X, et al. Krag versus Caudad trajectory technique for pedicle screw insertion in osteoporotic vertebrae: biomechanical comparison and analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(26 Spec No.):B27-35.
Shi K, Lei Y, Wang H, et al. Biomechanical study of pull-out force on pedicle screws of different sagittal angles. Chin J Bone Jt Injury. 2009;24(4):311–3.
Seuk JW, Bae J, Shin SH, Lee SH. Long-term minimum clinically important difference in health-related quality of life scores after instrumented lumbar interbody fusion for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg. 2018;117:e493–9.
Kim CH, Chung CK, Choi Y, et al. Increased proportion of fusion surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and changes in reoperation rate: a nationwide cohort study with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(5):346–54.
Feng Y, Chen L, Gu Y, et al. Influence of the posterior lumbar interbody fusion on the sagittal spino-pelvic parameters in isthmic L5–S1 spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(1):e20–5.
Feng Y, Liang C, Yong G, et al. Restoration of the spinopelvic sagittal balance in isthmic spondylolisthesis: posterior lumbar interbody fusion may be better than posterolateral fusion. Spine J. 2015;15:1527–35.
Park SJ, Lee CS, Chung SS, et al. Postoperative changes in pelvic parameters and sagittal balance in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery. 2011;68(2 Suppl Operative):355–63.