Advertisement

Should patients with lumbar stenosis and grade I spondylolisthesis be treated differently based on spinopelvic alignment? A retrospective, two-year, propensity matched, comparison of patient-reported outcome measures and clinical outcomes from multiple sites within a single health system

Published:September 02, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2022.08.020

      Abstract

      BACKGROUND

      Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is one of the most common pathologies addressed by surgeons. Recently, data demonstrated improved outcomes with fusion in conjunction with laminectomy compared to laminectomy alone. However, given not all degenerative spondylolistheses are clinically comparable, the best treatment option may depend on multiple parameters. Specifically, the impact of spinopelvic alignment on patient reported and clinical outcomes following fusion versus decompression for grade I spondylolisthesis has yet to be explored.

      PURPOSE

      This study assessed two-year clinical outcomes and one-year patient reported outcomes following laminectomy with concomitant fusion versus laminectomy alone for management of grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis. The present study is the first to examine the effect of spinopelvic alignment on patient-reported and clinical outcomes following decompression alone versus decompression with fusion.

      STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

      Retrospective sub-group analysis of observational, prospectively collected cohort study.

      PATIENT SAMPLE

      679 patients treated with laminectomy with fusion or laminectomy alone for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis and comorbid spinal stenosis performed by orthopaedic and neurosurgeons at three medical centers affiliated with a single, tertiary care center.

      OUTCOME MEASURES

      The primary outcome was the change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Global Physical Health (GPH), and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores at baseline and post-operatively at 4-6 and 10-12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included operative parameters (estimated blood loss and operative time), and two-year clinical outcomes including reoperations, duration of postoperative physical therapy, and discharge disposition.

      METHODS

      Radiographs/MRIs assessed stenosis, spondylolisthesis, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, and pelvic tilt; from this data, two cohorts were created based on pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PILL), denoted as “high” and “low” mismatch. Patients underwent either decompression or decompression with fusion; propensity score matching (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to create matched cohorts of “cases” (fusion) and “controls” (decompression). Binary comparisons used McNemar test; continuous outcomes used Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Between-group comparisons of changes in PROMIS GPH and GMH scores were analyzed using mixed-effects models; analyses were conducted separately for patients with high and low pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PILL) mismatch.

      RESULTS

      49.9% of patients (339) underwent lumbar decompression with fusion, while 50.1% (340) received decompression. In the high PLL mismatch cohort at 10-12 months postoperatively, fusion-treated patients reported improved PROs, including GMH (26.61 vs. 20.75, p<0.0001) and GPH (23.61 vs. 18.13, p<0.0001). They also required fewer months of outpatient physical therapy (1.61 vs. 3.65, p<0.0001) and had lower 2-year reoperation rates (12.63% vs. 17.89%, p=0.0442) compared to decompression-only patients. In contrast, in the low PLL mismatch cohort, fusion-treated patients demonstrated worse endpoint PROs (GMH: 18.67 vs. 21.52, p<0.0001; GPH: 16.08 vs. 20.74, p<0.0001). They were also more likely to require skilled nursing/rehabilitation centers (6.86% vs. 0.98%, p=0.0412) and extended outpatient physical therapy (2.47 vs. 1.34 months, p<0.0001) and had higher 2-year reoperation rates (25.49% vs. 14.71%,p=0.0152).

      CONCLUSIONS

      Lumbar laminectomy with fusion was superior to laminectomy in health–related quality of life and reoperation rate at two years postoperatively only for patients with sagittal malalignment, represented by high PILL mismatch. In contrast, the addition of fusion for patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and spinopelvic harmony (low PILL mismatch) resulted in worse quality of life outcomes and reoperation rates.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Spine Journal
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Newman PH
        • Stone KH.
        The etiology of spondylolisthesis.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1963; 45-B: 39-59https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.45B1.39
        • 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: 802-808
        • Mardjetko SM
        • Connolly PJ
        • Shott S.
        Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970-1993.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19 (Suppl): 2256S-2265S
        • Kornblum MB
        • Fischgrund JS
        • Herkowitz HN
        • Abraham DA
        • Berkower DL
        • Ditkoff JS.
        Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29
        • Ghogawala Z
        • Benzel EC
        • Amin-Hanjani S
        • et al.
        Prospective outcomes evaluation after decompression with or without instrumented fusion for lumbar stenosis and degenerative Grade I spondylolisthesis.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2004; 1: 267-272https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2004.1.3.0267
        • 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: 461-472https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-199306060-00001
        • Fischgrund JS
        • Mackay M
        • Herkowitz HN
        • Brower R
        • Montgomery DM
        • Kurz LT.
        1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997; 22: 2807-2812https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199712150-00003
        • Kepler CK
        • Vaccaro AR
        • Hilibrand AS
        • et al.
        National trends in the use of fusion techniques to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39
        • 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: 44-54https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.10.004
        • Schroeder GD
        • Kepler CK
        • Kurd MF
        • et al.
        Rationale for the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40: E1161-E1166https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001116
        • Lønne G
        • Fritzell P
        • Hägg O
        • et al.
        Lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison of surgical practice variation and clinical outcome in three national spine registries.
        Spine J. 2019; 19: 41-49https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.028
        • Tezuka F
        • Paul J
        • Sairyo K
        • Patel AA
        • Hsu WK.
        P45. Radiological features of slip progression in adult patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis.
        Spine J. 2020; 20: S167-S168https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.05.443
        • Lai Q
        • Gao T
        • Lv X
        • et al.
        Correlation between the sagittal spinopelvic alignment and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19: 151https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2073-z
        • Kobayashi H
        • Endo K
        • Sawaji Y
        • et al.
        Global sagittal spinal alignment in patients with degenerative low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis.
        J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019; 272309499019885190https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499019885190
        • Radovanovic I
        • Urquhart JC
        • Ganapathy V
        • et al.
        Influence of postoperative sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters on the outcome of patients surgically treated for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
        J Neurosurg Spine SPI. 2017; 26: 448-453https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.9.SPINE1680
        • Amtmann D
        • Kim J
        • Chung H
        • Askew RL
        • Park R
        • Cook KF.
        Minimally important differences for Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference for individuals with back pain.
        J Pain Res. 2016; 9: 251-255https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S93391
        • Thissen D
        • Liu Y
        • Magnus B
        • et al.
        Estimating minimally important difference (MID) in PROMIS pediatric measures using the scale-judgment method.
        Qual life Res an Int J Qual life Asp Treat care Rehabil. 2016; 25: 13-23https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1058-8
        • Iyer S
        • Sheha E
        • Fu MC
        • et al.
        Sagittal spinal alignment in adult spinal deformity: an overview of current concepts and a critical analysis review.
        JBJS Rev. 2018; 6
        • Ghogawala Z
        • Dziura J
        • Butler WE
        • et al.
        Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 1424-1434https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1508788
        • Försth P
        • Ólafsson G
        • Carlsson T
        • randomized A
        • et al.
        controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 1413-1423https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1513721
        • Austevoll IM
        • Gjestad R
        • Solberg T
        • et al.
        Comparative effectiveness of microdecompression alone vs decompression plus Instrumented fusion in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3e2015015https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.15015
        • Austevoll IM
        • Hermansen E
        • Fagerland MW
        • et al.
        Decompression with or without fusion in degenerative sumbar spondylolisthesis.
        N Engl J Med. 2021; 385: 526-538https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2100990
        • Franovic S
        • Gulledge CM
        • Kuhlmann NA
        • Williford TH
        • Chen C
        • Makhni EC.
        Establishing “Normal” patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function and pain interference scores: a true reference score according to adults free of joint pain and disability.
        JBJS Open Access. 2019; 4
        • Zhang Z
        • Kim HJ
        • Lonjon G
        • Zhu Y.
        Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching.
        Ann Transl Med. 2019; 7: 16https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.12.10
        • Guy D
        • Karp I
        • Wilk P
        • Chin J
        • Rodrigues G.
        Propensity score matching versus coarsened exact matching in observational comparative effectiveness research.
        J Comp Eff Res. 2021; 10: 939-951https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2021-0069
        • Schuller S
        • Charles YP
        • Steib J-P.
        Sagittal spinopelvic alignment and body mass index in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.
        Eur spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2011; 20: 713-719https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1640-2
        • Funao H
        • Tsuji T
        • Hosogane N
        • et al.
        Comparative study of spinopelvic sagittal alignment between patients with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis.
        Eur spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2012; 21: 2181-2187https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2374-0
        • Ferrero E
        • Ould-Slimane M
        • Gille O
        • Guigui P.
        Sagittal spinopelvic alignment in 654 degenerative spondylolisthesis.
        Eur spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2015; 24: 1219-1227https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3778-4
        • Hanson DS
        • Bridwell KH
        • Rhee JM
        • Lenke LG.
        Correlation of pelvic incidence with low- and high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27: 2026-2029https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200209150-00011
        • Barrey C
        • Jund J
        • Noseda O
        • Roussouly P.
        Sagittal balance of the pelvis-spine complex and lumbar degenerative diseases. A comparative study about 85 cases.
        Eur spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2007; 16: 1459-1467https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0294-6
        • Gottfried ON
        • Daubs MD
        • Patel AA
        • Dailey AT
        • Brodke DS.
        Spinopelvic parameters in postfusion flatback deformity patients.
        Spine J. 2009; 9: 639-647https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.04.008
        • Kim MK
        • Lee S-H
        • Kim E-S
        • Eoh W
        • Chung S-S
        • Lee C-S.
        The impact of sagittal balance on clinical results after posterior interbody fusion for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a pilot study.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12: 69https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-69
        • Hatakka J
        • Pernaa K
        • Rantakokko J
        • Laaksonen I
        • Saltychev M.
        Effect of lumbar laminectomy on spinal sagittal alignment: a systematic review.
        Eur Spine J. 2021; 30: 2413-2426https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06827-y
        • Uysal M
        • Ozalay M
        • Derincek A
        • Kochai A
        • Turker M.
        Effect of PLIF and TLIF on sagittal spinopelvic balance of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.
        Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2018; 52: 272-276https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2018.03.001
        • Tan MWP
        • Sayampanathan AA
        • Jiang L
        • Guo CM.
        Comparison of outcomes between single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
        Clin Spine Surg. 2021; 34
        • Ahlquist S
        • Park HY
        • Gatto J
        • Shamie AN
        • Park DY.
        Does approach matter? A comparative radiographic analysis of spinopelvic parameters in single-level lumbar fusion.
        Spine J. 2018; 18: 1999-2008https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.03.014
        • Divi SN
        • Goyal DKC
        • Bowles DR
        • et al.
        How do spinopelvic parameters influence patient-reported outcome measurements after lumbar decompression?.
        Spine J. 2020; 20: 1610-1617https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.05.101
        • Dimar 2nd, JR
        • Carreon LY
        • Labelle H
        • et al.
        Intra- and inter-observer reliability of determining radiographic sagittal parameters of the spine and pelvis using a manual and a computer-assisted methods.
        Eur spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2008; 17: 1373-1379https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0755-1