A study of the outcome of surgical management of spondylolisthesis treated with a pedicle screw-rod system & posterolateral fusion:  A retrospective observational study.

Rajesh Kumar; Ajay Mahto Kumar; MD Zeeshan Jawed

doi:10.51168/rz4xk265

Autori

Rajesh Kumar Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Katihar Medical College, Katihar, Bihar, India
Ajay Mahto Kumar Professor & HOD, Department of Orthopaedics, Katihar Medical College, Katihar, Bihar, India
MD Zeeshan Jawed Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Rama Medical College and Hospital, Hapur, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51168/rz4xk265

Cuvinte cheie:

Spondylolisthesis, Pedicle screw fixation, Posterolateral fusion, Lumbar spine, Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analogue Scale, Spinal fusion

Rezumat

Background

Spondylolisthesis may cause chronic low back pain, radiculopathy, neurological deficits, and functional disability. Surgical treatment is indicated in patients with persistent symptoms despite conservative management or progressive neurological impairment. Pedicular screw-rod fixation with posterolateral fusion provides spinal stabilization and promotes fusion.

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical, functional, radiological, and neurological outcomes of patients with spondylolisthesis treated with pedicular screw-rod fixation and posterolateral fusion.

Materials and methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted at Katihar Medical College, Bihar, India. Medical records of 30 patients who underwent surgical management for spondylolisthesis between November 2023 and November 2025 were reviewed. Demographic, clinical, radiological, operative, and postoperative data were collected. Functional outcomes were assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. Radiological fusion and postoperative complications were also evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0.

Results

The mean age was 46.8 ± 11.2 years, with females comprising 60.0% of patients. Degenerative spondylolisthesis was predominant (63.3%), and L4–L5 was the most commonly affected level (56.7%). Mean VAS scores improved from 7.8 ± 1.1 preoperatively to 2.1 ± 0.9 at final follow-up (p<0.001), while ODI scores improved from 58.6 ± 10.5 to 18.4 ± 7.3 (p<0.001). Radiological fusion was achieved in 93.3% of patients, and 86.7% achieved excellent or good outcomes according to modified MacNab criteria. No implant failure or revision surgery occurred.

Conclusion

Pedicular screw-rod fixation with posterolateral fusion resulted in significant pain relief, functional improvement, and high fusion rates with few postoperative complications.

Recommendation

This procedure may be considered an effective surgical option for appropriately selected patients with symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis. Larger multicenter studies with longer follow-up are recommended.

Biografii autori

Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Katihar Medical College, Katihar, Bihar, India

is an assistant professor in the Department of Orthopaedics at Katihar Medical College, Katihar, Bihar, India. His clinical and research interests include orthopaedic and spinal disorders, with particular interest in the surgical management of lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Ajay Mahto Kumar, Professor & HOD, Department of Orthopaedics, Katihar Medical College, Katihar, Bihar, India

is a professor and head of the Department of Orthopaedics at Katihar Medical College, Katihar, Bihar, India. His clinical and academic interests include orthopaedic surgery and the management of spinal disorders.
MD Zeeshan Jawed, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Rama Medical College and Hospital, Hapur, India

is an assistant professor in the Department of Orthopaedics, Rama Medical College and Hospital, Hapur, India. His professional interests include orthopaedic surgery and spinal disorders.

Referințe

1. Wiltse II, newman ph, macnab i. Classification of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(117):23-29. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197606000-00003

2. Meyerding hw. Spondylolisthesis. Surg gynecol obstet. 1932;54:371-377.

3. Herkowitz HN, Garfin SR, Eismont FJ, Bell GR, Balderston RA, editors. Rothman-Simeone and Herkowitz's The Spine. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2018.

4. Kalichman l, hunter dj. Diagnosis and conservative management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(3):327-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0543-3 PMid:18026865 PMCid:PMC2270383

5. Jacobsen S, sonne-holm s, rovsing h, monrad h, gebuhr p. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: An epidemiological perspective. Spine (phila pa 1976). 2007;32(1):120-125. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000250979.12398.96 PMid:17202902 PMCid:PMC9852633

6. Labelle h, roussouly p, berthonnaud e, dimnet j, o'brien m. Spondylolisthesis, pelvic incidence and spinopelvic balance. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(1):20-27. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000138279.53439.cc PMid:15371707 PMCid:PMC10226051

7. Leone A, Guglielmi G, cassar-pullicino vn, Bonomo L. Lumbar spondylolysis: A review. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(6):683-700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-010-0942-0 PMid:20440613

8. Resnick dk, watters wc 3rd, sharan a, mummaneni pv, dailey at, wang jc, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(1):2-6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14257 PMid:24980578

9. Seitsalo s. Operative and conservative treatment of moderate spondylolisthesis in young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(6):908-913. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.72B5.2211782 PMid:2211782

10. 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):2257-2270. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa070302 PMid:17538085 PMCid:PMC2553804

11. Pearson a, blood e, lurie j, abdu w, sengupta d, frymoyer j, et al. Degenerative spondylolisthesis versus spinal stenosis: Does a slip matter? Spine (phila pa 1976). 2010;35(3):298-305. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bdafd1 PMid:20075768 PMCid:PMC2887281

12. 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):439-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.11.055 PMid:26681351

13. Fischgrund js, Mackay M, Herkowitz hn, Brower R, Montgomery dm, Kurz lt. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: A prospective randomized study comparing decompression with decompression and fusion. Spine (phila pa 1976). 1997;22(24):2807-2812. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199712150-00003 PMid:9431616 PMCid:PMC9852633

14. Bridwell KH. Posterolateral fusion and pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine (Phila, PA 1976). 1995;20(24 suppl):191s-194s.

15. Kim kt, lee sh, suk ks, bae sc. The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila, PA 1976). 2006;31(6):712-716. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000202533.05906.ea PMid:16540878

16. Cheng l, nie l, zhang l, hou y. Fusion versus non-fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis: A meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(7):1071-1080.

17. Fairbank jc, pynsent pb. The oswestry disability index. Spine (phila pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940-2953. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 PMid:11074683

18. Huskisson ec. Measurement of pain. Lancet. 1974;2(7889):1127-1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(74)90884-8 PMid:4139420

19. Macnab I. Negative disc exploration. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1971;53(5):891-903. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197153050-00004 PMid:4326746

20. 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):1424-1434. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1508788 PMid:27074067

21. 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):194-198. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2000.93.2.0194 PMid:11012048

22. Vibert bt, sliva cd, herkowitz hn. Treatment of instability and spondylolisthesis: Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;443:222-227. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000200233.99436.ea PMid:16462445

23. Rosenberg NJ. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: Predisposing factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975;57(4):467-474.

https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197557040-00004

24. Matsudaira k, yamazaki t, seichi a, takeshita k, hoshi k, kishimoto j, et al. Spinal stenosis in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine (phila pa 1976). 2005;30(12):1425-1430.

25. Herkowitz hn, kurz lt. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: A prospective study comparing decompression alone and decompression with fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(6):802-808. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199173060-00002

26. Försth p, ólafsson g, carlsson t, frost a, borgström f, fritzell p, et al. A randomized controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):1413-1423. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1513721 PMid:27074066

27. Martin Bi, Mirza Sk, Spina N, Spiker Wr, Lawrence B, Brodke Ds. Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs. Spine (phila pa 1976). 2019;44(5):369-376. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002822 PMid:30074971

28. Joaquim af, Ghizoni E, Tedeschi H, Batista uc, Patel aa. Clinical results of instrumented posterolateral fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: A systematic review. Global Spine J. 2017;7(3):272-279.

29. Glassman sd, carreon ly, djurasovic m, campbell mj, puno rm, johnson jr, et al. Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by oswestry disability index. Spine J. 2009;9(9):748-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.011 PMid:18805059

30. Fritzell P, hägg o, Nordwall A. Swedish lumbar spine study group. Complications in lumbar fusion surgery. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(2):178-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-002-0493-8 PMid:12709856 PMCid:PMC3784840

31. Kim hj, Lee hm, Kim hs, Moon es, Park jo. Radiological and clinical outcomes after instrumented posterolateral fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine J. 2011;5(3):154-160.

32. Kornblum mb, Fischgrund js, Herkowitz hn, Abraham da, Berkower dl, Ditkoff js. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: Long-term outcome after decompression and fusion. Spine (phila pa 1976). 2004;29(7):726-733. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000119398.22620.92 PMid:15087793 PMCid:PMC9852633

33. Andersen t, christensen fb, niedermann b, helmig p, høy k, hansen es, et al. Impact of instrumentation on fusion rates and clinical outcome after posterolateral lumbar fusion. Spine (phila pa 1976). 2009;34(10):1024-1030.

34. Kepler ck, vaccaro ar, hilibrand as, anderson dg, rihn ja, albert tj. National trends in the management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and future directions. Spine (phila pa 1976). 2014;39(3):E183-e189. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000486 PMid:24979276