Journals / Eklem Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi Dergisi (Eski Adı: Artroplasti Artroskopik Cerrahi Derg.) / 2005 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2

Derece I dejeneratif lomber spondilolistesis tedavisinde interspinöz ligamentoplasti, posterior interbody füzyon ve posterolateral füzyonun karşılaştırılması

A comparison between interspinous ligamentoplasty, posterior interbody fusion, and posterolateral fusion in the treatment of grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Pages
111–117
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Successful outcomes following ILP were significantly correlated with a facet angle

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Interspinous ligamentoplasty (ILP) is a relatively new procedure designed to stabilize mild degenerative lumbar instability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 103 patients who underwent decompressive laminectomy followed by PLIF (n=30; mean age 53.5 years), PLF (n=39; mean age 52.3 years), or ILP (n=34; mean age 55.0 years).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Successful outcomes following ILP were significantly correlated with a facet angle
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: Interspinous ligamentoplasty (ILP) is a relatively new procedure designed to stabilize mild degenerative lumbar instability. We compared surgical outcomes of ILP, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral fusion (PLF) and evaluated radiographic factors affecting the success of ILP. Patients and methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 103 patients who underwent decompressive laminectomy followed by PLIF (n=30; mean age 53.5 years), PLF (n=39; mean age 52.3 years), or ILP (n=34; mean age 55.0 years). All the patients had segmental instability due to grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4.5. RadiographicaUy, we measured facet angles, transverse articular dimension, disc height, the angle of displacement in flexion, and the percent of slippage. Clinical outcomes were evaluated according to the Macnab criteria. The mean follow-up periods were 36 months, 35 months, and 22 months in the PLIF, PLF, and ILP groups, respectively. Results: The average duration of anesthesia, the length of the incision, the amount of blood loss, and the length of hospital stay were significantly more favorable in the ILP group. The clinical success (excellent or good) rate was 76.7% in the PLIF group, 82.0% in the PLF group, and 85.3% in the ILP group (p=0.67). No neurological complications, infections, or device failure were encountered in the ILP group. However, deep wound infections (n=2), major neurological complications (n=3), newly developed degenerative spondylolisthesis (n=l), and mortality due to surgery-associated complications (n=l) were seen in the PLIF group. Device failure developed in four patients in the PLF group. Successful outcomes following ILP were significantly correlated with a facet angle

Özet

Amaç: İnterspinöz ligamentoplasti (ILP) hafif-orta dereceli dejeneratif lomber instabilitenin düzeltilmesinde nispeten yeni bir yöntemdir. Bu çalışmada ILP, posterior lomber interbody füzyon (PLIF) ve posterolateral füzyonun (PLF) sonuçları karşılaştırıldı ve ILP başarısını etkileyen radyografik faktörler değerlendirildi. Hastalar ve yöntemler: Çalışmada, dekompresif laminektomiden sonra PLIF (n=30; ort. yaş 53.5), PLF (n=39; ort. yaş 52.3) ve ILP (n=34; ort. yaş 55.0) uygulanan 103 hasta geriye dönük olarak değerlendirildi. Tüm hastalarda L4.5 düzeyinde derece I dejeneratif spondilolistesise bağlı segmental instabilite vardı. Ameliyat öncesi ve sonrası radyografilerde faset açıları, transvers artiküler boyutu, disk yüksekliği, fleksiyonda deplasman açısı ve kayma oranı ölçüldü. Klinik sonuçlar Macnab ölçütlerine göre değerlendirildi. Ortalama izlem süresi PLIF, PLF ve ILP gruplarında sırasıyla 36 ay, 35 ay ve 22 ay idi. Bulgular: Ortalama anestezi süresi, insizyon uzunluğu, kan kaybı miktarı ve hastanede kalma süresi ILP grubunda anlamlı derecede düşük bulundu. Klinik başarı (mükemmeel ve iyi) oranlan PLIF, PLF ve ILP gruplannda sırasıyla %76.7, %82.0 ve %85.3 idi (p=0.67). Nörolojik komplikasyon, enfeksiyon veya enstrüman başarısızlığı ILP grubunda görülmezken, PLIF grubunda derin yara enfeksiyonu (n=2), önemli nörolojik komplikasyon (n=3), yeni dejeneratif spondilolistesis gelişimi (n=l) ve cerrahi ile ilgili komplikasyonlara bağlı ölüm (n=l); PLF grubunda ise dört olguda enstrüman başansızlığı görüldü. İnters¬pinöz ligamentoplasti ile alınan başarılı sonuçların, 51.88 dereceden küçük faset açısı, 9.38 mm'den düşük disk yüksekliği, kayma oranında 50% azalma ve daha az vakum anormalliği ile anlamlı derecede ilişkili olduğu saptandı. Sonuç: İnterspinöz ligamentoplasti, derece I dejeneratif spondilolistesis tedavisinde güvenli ve etkin bir girişimdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

LEE, S., SHIN, S., LEE, H., CHUNG, B. (2022). Derece I dejeneratif lomber spondilolistesis tedavisinde interspinöz ligamentoplasti, posterior interbody füzyon ve posterolateral füzyonun karşılaştırılması. Eklem Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi Dergisi (Eski Adı: Artroplasti Artroskopik Cerrahi Derg.), Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2, 111–117. https://ajindex.com/articles/498864

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. 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;6:461-72
  2. Lorenz M, Zindrick M, Schwaegler P, Vrbos L, Collatz MA, Behal R, et al. A comparison of single-level fusions with and without hardware. Spine 1991;16(8 Suppl):S455-8
  3. Vaccaro AR, Garfin SR. Internal fixation (pedicle screw fixation) for fusions of the lumbar spine. Spine 1995; 20(24 Suppl):157S-165S
  4. Zdeblick TA. A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results. Spine 1993;18:983-91
  5. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD. A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine 1993;18:2106-7
  6. Brodke DS, Dick JC, Kunz DN, McCabe R, Zdeblick TA. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. A biomechanical comparison, including a new threaded cage. Spine 1997;22:26-31
  7. Steffee AD, Sitkowski DJ. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and plates. Clin Orthop 1988;227:99-102
  8. Senegas J, Etchevers JP, Vital JM, Baulny D, Grenier F. Recalibration of the lumbar canal, an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis. [Article in French] Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1988;74:15-22
  9. Dupuis PR, Yong-Hing K, Cassidy JD, Kirkaldy-Willis WH. Radiologic diagnosis of degenerative lumbar spinal instability. Spine 1985;10:262-76
  10. Marique P. The mobility of spondylolisthesis. [Article in French] Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1953;39:287-8
  11. Taillard W. Spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. [Article in French] Acta Orthop Scand 1954;24:115-44
  12. Kant AP, Daum WJ, Dean SM, Uchida T. Evaluation of lumbar spine fusion. Plain radiographs versus direct surgical exploration and observation. Spine 1995;20:2313-7
  13. Macnab I. Negative disc exploration. An analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in sixty-eight patients. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1971;53:891-903
  14. Sonntag VK, Marciano FF. Is fusion indicated for lumbar spinal disorders? Spine 1995;20(24 Suppl):138S-142S
  15. Voydeville G, Diop A, Lavaste F, Girard F, Hardy P. Experimental lumbar instability and artificial ligament. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2000;10:85-91
  16. Papp T, Porter RW, Aspden RM, Shepperd J A. An in vitro study of the biomechanical effects of flexible stabilization on the lumbar spine. Spine 1997;22:151-5
  17. Asano S, Kaneda K, Umehara S, Tadano S. The mechanical pro