Abstract The Results & Affecting Factors of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with TPM Cages in Spondylolisthesis Jae Yoon Chung, MD, Hyoung Yeon Seo, MD, Jong Seon Kim, MD Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, Korea Study Design : This is a retrospective study analyzing the results of posterior lumbar interbody fusion(plif with TPM cages in spondylolisthesis Objectives : The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical, radiologic results & affecting factors of PLIF with TPM cages in spondylolisthesis Summary of Literature Review : The ordinary PLIF has 86-98% of radiologic union rate and clinical satisfactory rate The problems of ordinary PLIF were graft breakage, donor site morbidity, limited bone resources, high failure rate using only transpedicular screw fixation Materials and Methods : From October 1995 to January 1999, 108 consecutive patients with spondylolisthesis were treated by PLIF with TPM cages, in which morcellized bone chips salvaged from posterior neural arch applied, and pedicle screw fixation Results : Preoperative Low Back Pain score(total 100 points was improved from 474 points to 887 points at last follow-up 10 point visual analogue scale was reduced to 15 point at last follow-up In the end results, Ninty-two percent of patients rated as excellent or good The preoperative value of slippage, 186% was achieved to 55% at last follow-up The anterior intervertebral disc space height was increased from 100 to 162mm postoperatively Fusion occurred in all patients except one Groups below 60-year-old patient at the time of surgery showed better clinical results than those above 60 (P<005 No clear correlations were noted between sex, the types of spondylolisthesis, bone mineral density, smoking habits and obesity in clinical, radiologic results Conclusion : PLIF with TPM cages is appeared to be a recommended procedure of choice to treat lumbar spondylolisthesis and this operation should be performed with a caution in aged patients Key Words : Lumbar spine, Spondylolisthesis, TPM cage, Posterior lumbar interbody fusion, Affecting factor Address reprint requests to Jae Yoon Chung, MD Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Chonnam National University #8 Hak-dong, Dong-ku, Gwangju, 501-757, Korea Tel : 82-62-220-6336, Fax : 82-62-225-7794, E-mail : jychung@chonnamchonnamackr - 586 -
,, 23, 25, C l o w a r d 10, 11, 1, M e y e r d i n g method, 1 86, 2, 2 1, 3 1 L 4-56 8, (63%, L5-S120(19%, L3-4-57(6%, L4-5-S1 1 3( 12 % (Table 1 DEXA(Dual energy 2, 10, 11, 13, 17, 35, 42, 44, X-ray Absorptiometry, Lunar DPX-,,,, L (Lunar Radiation Corp, Widconsin, USA, 2, 3, 4,,, 109g/(0632-1562 g/ 19% 1, 3, 25, 44 (body mass index, BMI, K g /( 12, m 2, 27, 25, 32% 14, 16, 20, 30,,, 80~90Hg, 3, 10, 11,,,, (epidural fat Trapezoidal PLIF Mesh(TPM cage(depuy Acromed,, Moss M i a m i Leeds, England polyaxial screw(depuy Acromed, Raynham Ma, USA,, 19958 19991-587 - TPM, 1 108 26 (12 ~62, 34(315%, 74(685% 20 71 52, 40 50 76(70%,, 105( 97 %, 102(95%, 92(86% 48, 59 Table 1 Levels of fusion Levels of fusion No of case L4-5 68 (63% L5-S1 20 (19% L3-4-5 07 (06% L4-5-S1 13 (12%
(thecal sac ( r o o t r e t r a c t o r 10 box chisel 10 point visual analogue scale (,concave shape SPSS(statistical package for social science (cortical bony plate TPM, compressor,, ( L o r d o s i s, 1997R a y 36,,,,,,,,,,, Lin 27 (Table 2, Inoue 22 (Low back pain score, LBP score LBP Score 100,,,,,,,, (Table 3 6 60, Meyerding grade, 1 2, 1 0 g /,,,, LBP score,,,,,, Table 2 Clinical results (Lin et al, 1983 Exellent result Good result Fair Poor complete recovery resumption of normal activity no medication returned to work took occasional mild analgesis enjoyed work & recreation activities worked with discomfort improved after surgery medication in a dependent fashion unable to return to work denied any improvement Table 3 Radiologic criteria of bony union (Ray et al, 1997 (1 lack of any visible motion or less than 3 degree of intersegmental change, as seen on flexion-extension radiograph (2 lack of dark halo around the implant (3 minimum loss of disc-space height indicating a resistance to collapse of the cancellous vertebral bone (4 lack of visible fracture of the cage, graft, vertebra (5 lack of substantial sclerotic changes in the recipient bone bed or graft (6 visible bone within the hollow Ray titanium fusion cages as seen on anterior,posterior or Feguson radiographs - 588 -
, 887 (Table 6 105( 97 %, 27 6(6%, 102(95%, 6(6% (Table 7 ( 25 %, (neurologic claudication 92( 85 % 30( 28 %,, 10 point visual analogue 25(87%, 5(13% s c a l e 10 0 60( 55 % 4 2, 1 5, 44( 72 %, (Table 6 16(28% (Table 4 L i n 80( 74 %, 20(18%, 5(5%, 3(3% (Table 5 92%, 3, 18 6 % 5 3 % 72%, 55% (pseudoarthrosis 1 (Table 6, 2 (p<005 I n o u e (LBP score 474(100 708 10 Table 4 Objective Clinical Results 165 165%, 153 Preoperative Complete Partial recovery recovery *SLRT 27 (25% 27 (100% 00 (00% Muscle weakness 30 (28% 25 (087% 05 (13% Sensory deficit 60 (55% 44 (072% 16 (28% *SLRT= positive to straight leg raising test Table 5 Clinical Results ( Lin et al, 1983 No of cases Exellent 80 (74% Good 20 (18% Fair 05 (05% Poor 03 (03% (Table 6, (P<005 107( 99 0 % 13( 10 40, 2 (Table 8 Table 7 Subjective Clinical results Preoperative Final Low back pain 105 (97% 6 (6% Leg pain 102 (95% 6 (6% Neurologic claudication 192 (86% 0 (0% Table 6 Mean LBP score, 10 point Visual Analogue Scale, Slippage Percent and Anterior Intervertebral Disc Height Change Preoperative Immediately Postoperative Final LBP score(point 474105 708122 88786 10-point scale(point 10 142118 11514 %-Slip(% 186104 153158 15559 Anterior disc height(mm 100149 165142 15339-589 -
2 Meyerding grade I, 19 grade II, 1 grade III,, 4, 2, (Table 10 2, 1, (Table 9,,,,,,, 1 4, (Table 11, 2, 6, 1 8, Mardjetko 49 1970 1993 25, 60, LBP score 48 8 42 7 (P<005, 89 4 86 0 (P<005 =( LBP score- LBP score/(100- LBP score 1 00, 60 79%, 60 76 % 75 % Table 8 Fusion rates cases Fused (interbody fusion 107 Delayed union 002 Pseudoarthrosis 001 Table 10 Comparison of slippage percent between degenerative & spondylolytic spondylolisthesis Table 9 Complication Case Profiles No Age Sex Diagnosis Operation Cx 1 24 M LytSp L5-S1 PLIF L5-S1 distal screw breakage 2 40 M TraumaticSp L5-S1 LytSp L4-5 PLIF L4-5-S1 distal screw breakage 3 54 M LytSp L3-4-5 PLIF L3-4-5 distal screw breakage 4 56 M DSp L4-5 PLIF L4-5 distal screw breakage 5 65 F DSp L4-5 PLIF L4-5 & PL L2-3-4 L5 screw loosening 6 69 F DSp L4-5 PLIF L4-5 L5 screw loosening 7 53 M DSp L4-5 PLIF L4-5-S1 deep infection 8 66 F DSp L4-5-S1 SS L3-4 PLIF L4-5-S1 & PL L3-4 deep infection 9 71 F DSp L5-S1, SS L3-4 PLIF L4-5-S1 & PL L3-4 Pseudoarthrosis L5-S1 LytSp = spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, DSp= degenerative spondylolisthesis, SS= spinal stenosis, PL = posterolateral fusion - 590 -
Table 11 Comparison of the clinical & radiological results between age, sex, the types of spondylolisthesis, Meyerding grade, bone mineral density, smoking habits, obesity LBP score %-slip Intervertebral disc height preop last pre Imm last pre imm last age below60(n=84 488100* 894181* 197109 15758 16059 9748 16236 15237 age above60(n=24 427113* 860171* 148170 14156 14055 10950 16236 15034 male (n=34 481103* 888176* 158185 15868 15967 10751 16738 15837 female (n=74 474110* 884186* 199109 15153 15455 19748 15935 14936 deg (n=59 468100* 888179* 137160 13139 13441 11144 15934 14933 lyt (n=48 488114* 888181* 243114 18065 18166 18751 16438 15540 Grade I (n=86 471110* 888179* 144157 13942 14043 10942 16333 15333 Grade II (n=21 491181* 884181* 337169 10477 10973 16959 15341 14749 BMD1 (n=58 471100* 884171* 174189 15051 15253 10141 15934 14837 BMD<1 (n=32 474103* 881100* 185111 15470 15670 10861 17140 15837 Smoker (n=21 464186* 874189* 193187 15979 15979 10252 17036 16034 Non-smok(n=87 478110* 888179* 184107 15252 15553 10048 16036 15037 obesity (n=35 491193* 901165* 200117 14353 14255 19840 16030 15234 non-obesity(n=73 468114* 878189* 177196 15860 16159 10152 16238 15338 * Preoperative P=0012, Last follow-up P=0022 Preoperative P=0000, Immediate postoperative P=0002, Last follow-up P=0007 Preoperative P=0017 Preoperative P=0030, Immediate postoperative P=0001, Last follow-up P=0023 Preoperative P=0005 86% 93%,, 90% 86% 45, Blumenthal 5 K a n t 24 2, ( 42 % (29%, ( 68 % R a y 36 69% 31% (Table 3-3,13,14,33,44 29,,, 26, C T 3,13,14,33, Meyerding grade,, 1,6,39, 1,3,14,42, Kuslich 19,26 86~98% 1,3,13-15,18,25,33,34,44, 99% 1, 3 101 Yahiro 48 948%, 17 ~ 40 % 2 6,14,39,43 McGuire A m u n d- s o n 31, Thomsen 45,, 1,2,17,20,27,35,44 Watts 46-591 -
A B C Fig 1-A Lateral radiograph of a 54-year-old woman with spondylolytic spondylolisthesis Fig 1-B Lateral radiograph at the immediate postoperation shows PLIF L4-5 with TPM cages and Moss -Miami system Fig 1-C Lateral radiograph at three-year follow-up examination shows restoration of lumbar lordosis, wide foraminal patency, and solid interbody fusion A B C Fig 1-A Lateral radiograph at 70-year-old male with degenerative spondylolisthesis Fig 1-B Lateral radiograph at seven-month follow-up examination shows distal screw breakage Fig 1-C Lateral radiograph at two years seven months follow-up examination shows no further slippage, maintenance of lumbar lordosis, foraminal patency,, 170%,,,, 2,16-592 -
17%, 71%, (rod 02%, 1 25% TPM,,,,, 40, 28, Roca 3,35,39,41 Nakai 2, 16, 26, 44 32 Rish 38,, Brown 9, 31 TPM 44% 10, Ricciardi 37, K u s l i c h 26 Gill 17 174, 4 4,, 382 c c,,, 138, 1 4, 6 60 10 2 g /,,,, Dennis 12 100%,, 46% 60 6, 1, 60 3, 14,16,20,30, 1 30,47 TPM (flattened teeth-like,,, 29, Brantigan 8,14,47,,,,,, 3, TPM,, TPM 7,19,34 Y a h i r o 48 1 01 11%,,, 60-593 -
60 Two year clinical results of the FDA clinical trial Pre - sented at the third International meeting on advanced,,,,, Spine Techniques, Munich, Germany, 1996, 19 Brown CW, Orme TJ and Richardson HD : The rate of, pseudoarthrosis (surgical nonunion in patients who are smokers and paients who are non-smokers: A comparison study Spine, 11(9:942-3, 10 Cloward RB : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion Update, Clin Orthop, 193:16-19, 1985, 11 Cloward RB : Spondylolisthesis: Treatment by laminecto -, 60 my and posterior interbody fusion-review of 100cases, Clin Orthop, 154:74-82, 1981 12 Dennis S, Watkins R, Landaker S, Dillin W and REFERENCES Springer D : Comparison of disc space heights after ante - rior lumbar interbody fusion, Spine, 14(8:876-8, 1989 13 Edwards CC and Bradford DS : Controversies instru - 11 : mented reduction of spondylolisthesis Spine, 19(13: 1535-1537, 1994 14 Enker P and Steffee AD : Interbody fusion and instru -, 6(3:397- mentation Clin Orthop, 300:90-101, 1994 406, 1999 12 : 15 Fischgrund JS, Mackey M, Herkowitz HN, Brower R, Montgomery DM and Kurz LT : Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis :A prospective, ran -, 33(2: domized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and 359-366, 1998 13 : arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation, Spine, 22(24:2807-2812, 1997, 3(1:25-32, 16 Fraser RD : Interbody, posterior, and combined lumbar 1996 fusions Spine, 15(20, 24 Suppl:167S-177S, 1995 14 : 17 Gill K and Blumenthal SL : Posterior lumbar interbody, 33(7:1620-1626, 1998 fusion-a 2-year follow-up of 238 patients Acta Orthop Scand Suppl, 251:108-10, 1993 15 Blumenthal SL and Gill K : Can lumbar spine radi - ographs accurately determine fusion in postoperative patients? Correlation of routine radiographs with a sec - ond surgical look at lumbar fusions Spine, 18:1186-9, 1993 16 Booth KC, Bridwell KH, Eisenberg BA, Baldus CR and Lenke LG : Minimum 5-year results of degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and instru - mented posterior fusion Spine, 24(16:1721-1727, 1999 18 Garfin SR : Summation Spine, 19(20S:2300S-2305S, 1994 19 Hacker RJ : The Ray threaded fusion cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion J Neurosurgery, 43(4:982-983, 1998 20 Hambly MF : Lumbar interbody fusion utilizing fusion cages, WJM, 168(2:123-4, 1998 21 Hutter CG : Posterior intervertebral body fusion-a 25- year study, Clin Orthop, 179: 86-96, 1983 17 Boxall D, Bradford DS, Winter RB and Moe JH : 22 Inoue SI, Watanabe T, Goto S, Takahashi K, Takata K Mangement of severe spondylolisthesis in children and adolescent J Bone Joint Surg, 61-A(4:479-495, 1979 18 Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis M, Quinn L and Persenaire M : Lumbar interbody fusion using the Branti - gan I/F cage for PLIF and the VSP pedicle screw system: and Sho E : Degenerative spondylolisthesis -Pathophysi - ology and results of anterior interbody fusion, Clin Orthop, 227:90-98, 1988 23 Kaneda K, Kazama H, Satoh S and Fujiya M : Followup study of medial facetectomies and posterolateral fusion - 594 -
with instrumentation in unstable degenerative spondylolis - thesis Clin Orthop, 203:159-167, 1986 24 Kant AP, Daum WJ, Dean SM and Uchida T : Evalua - tion of lumbar spine fusion Plain radiographs versus direct surgical exploration and observation Spine, 20(23:2313-7, 1995 25 Kim NH and Lee JW : Anterior interody fusion versus posterolateral fusion with transpedicular fixation for isth - mic spondylolisthesis in adults Spine, 24(8:812-816, 1999 26 Kuslich SD : Lumbar interbody cage fusion for back pain Spine 13(2 :295-311, 1999 27 Lin PM, Cautilli RA and Joyce MF : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion Clin Orthop, 180:154-168, 1983 28 Matsuzaki H, Tokuhashi Y, Matsumoto F, Hoshino M, Kiuchi T and Yoriyama S : Problems and solutions of pedicle screw plate fixation of lumbar spine Spine, 15(11:1159-1165, 1990 29 Matthiass HH and Heine J : The surgical reduction of spondylolisthesis Clin Orthop, 203:34-44 1986 30 McAfee PC : Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine J Bone Joint Surg, 81-A(6:859-880, 1999 31 McGuire RA and Amundson GM : The use of primary internal fixation in spondylolisthesis Spine, 18(12:1662-1672, 1993 32 Nakai S, Yoshizawa H and Kobayashi S : Long-term fol - low-up study of posterior lumbar interbody fusion J Spinal Disord, 12(4:293-299, 1999 33 Nooraie H, Ensafdaran A and Arasteh MM : Surgical management of low-grade lytic spondylolisthesis with C-D instrumentation in adult patients Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 119:337-339, 1999 34 Nork SE, Hu SS, Workman KL, Glazer PA and Bradford DS : Patient outcomes after decompression and instrumented posterior spinal fusion for degerative spondylolisthesis Spine, 24(6:561-569, 1999 35 Onesti ST and Ashkenazi E : Instrumentation, technique and technology J Neurosurgery, 42(1:200-205, 1998 36 Ray CD : Threaded fusion cages for lumbar interbody fusions An economic comparison with 360 degrees fusion Spine, 22:681-685, 1997 37 Ricciardi JE, Pflueger PC, Isaza JE and Whitecloud III TS : Transpedicular fixation for the treaqtment of isth - mic spondylolisthesis in adults Spine, 20(17:1917-1922, 1995 38 Rish BL : A critique of posterior lumbar interbody fusion:12 Years` experience with 250 patients Surg Neu - rol, 31(4:281-289, 1989 39 Roca J, Ubierna MT, Caceres E and Iborra M : Onestage decompression and posterlateral and interody fusion for severe spondylolisthesis (An analysis of 14 patients Spine 24(7:709-714, 1999 40 Schlegel KF and Pon MA : The biomechanics of posteri - or lumbar interbody fusion(plif in spondylolisthesis, Clin Orthop, 193:115-119, 1985 41 Simmons JW : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior elements as chip grafts Clin Orthop, 193:85-89, 1985 42 Steffee AD and Sitkowski DJ : Posterior lumbar inter - body fusion and plates, Clin Orthop, 227:99-102, 1988 43 Suezawa Y, Bernoski FP and Jacob HA : A comparison of long term of three types of posterior fusion of the lum - bar spine for spondylolisthesis Int Orthop(SICOT, 5:291-297, 1981 44 Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, Lee JH, Cho KJ and Kim HG : Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylotic spondylolisthesis Spine, 22(2:210-22, 1997 45 Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjær SP, Hansen ES, Fruensgaard S and B nger CE : The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion:a prospective, randomized clinical study Spine, 22(24:2813-2822, 1997 46 Watts C, Kington R and Roulhac G : C h a y m o p a p a i n treatment of intervertebral disc disease J Neurosurg, 42: 374-383, 1975 47 Weiner BK and Frser RD : Spine update lumbar inter - body cages Spine, 23(5:634-640, 1998 48 Yahiro MA : Comprehensive literature review -Pedicle screw fixation devices Spine, 19(20S:2274S-2278S, 1994 49 Zdeblick TA : A prospective, Randomized study of lum - bar fusion - preliminary results Spine, 18(8:983-991, 1993-595 -
: : 19958 19991, 1 108 26,,,,,,,, : (100 474, 887 (P<005, 100(92% 10 point Visual analogue scale 15 (P<005 186% 53%, 55% (P<005 100 162, 152mm 1, 13(8-24,,,,,,, 60 : TPM,, :,, TPM,, - 596 -