Two years following an ACDF, patients who underwent multi-level fusions appear to restore significantly greater amounts of lordosis compared to single-level procedures, while single-level ACDFs show significantly greater amounts of lordosis improvement over time. Multi-level procedures may not be at a significantly greater risk of developing early radiographic evidence of ASD compared to single-level procedure. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

No abstract

Background: Information regarding the treatment of high-grade spondylolisthesis (HGS) in adults has been previously described; however, previous descriptions of the evaluation and surgical management of HGS do not represent more recent and now established approaches. The purpose of the current review is to discuss current concepts in the evaluation and management of patients with HGS. Methods: Literature review. Results: HGS is diagnosed in up to 11.3% of adults with spondylolisthesis and typically presents as nonspecific lower back pain. Regarding evaluation, a thorough history and physical examination should be performed, which may help predict the presence of HGS. Diagnostic imaging, and specifically the use of spino-pelvic parameters, are now commonly implicated in guiding treatment course and prognosis. When surgical intervention is indicated, surgical approaches include in situ fusion variations, reduction and partial reduction with fusion, and vertebrectomy. Although the majority of studies suggest improvements with these approaches, the literature is limited by a low level of evidence with regards to the superiority of one technique when compared with others. Conclusions: HGS is a unique cause of low back pain in adults that carries considerable morbidity, but rarely presents with neurologic symptoms. Although the definitions, classifications, and methods of diagnosis of this spinal deformity have been established and accepted, the ideal surgical management of this deformity remains highly debated. Fusion in situ techniques are often technically easier to perform and provide lower risk of neurologic complications, whereas reduction and fusion techniques offer greater restoration of global spino-pelvic balance. Preoperative spinopelvic parameters may have utility in assisting in procedural selection; however, future, higher-quality and longer-term studies are warranted to determine the optimal surgical intervention among the widely available techniques currently used, and to better define the indications for these interventions.

No abstract

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study. Objective. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who underwent stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) to those who underwent posterolateral fusion (PLF) for symptomatic adjacent segment disease (ASD). Summary of Background Data. Recent studies have suggested that LLIF can successfully treat ASD; however, there are no studies to date that compare LLIF with the traditional open PLF in this cohort. Methods. A total of 47 consecutive patients who underwent LLIF or PLF for symptomatic ASD between January 2007 and August 2016 after failure of conservative management were reviewed for this study. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected on all patients at preoperative, postoperative, and most recent post-operative visit using the Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale (VAS)–Back, and VAS–Leg surveys. Preoperative, immediate postoperative, and most recent postoperative radiographs were assessed for pelvic incidence, fusion, intervertebral disc height, segmental and overall lumbar lordosis (LL). Symptomatic ASD was diagnosed if back pain, neurogenic claudication, or lower extremity radiculopathy presented following a previous lumbar fusion. Preoperative plain radiographs were evaluated for evidence of adjacent segment degeneration. Results. A total of 47 patients (23 LLIF, 24 PLF) met inclusion criteria. Operative times (P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the PLF group. Patients who underwent PLF were discharged approximately 3 days after the LLIF patients (P < 0.001). PROs in the PLF and LLIF cohorts showed significant and equivalent improvement, with equivalent radiographic fusion rates. LLIF significantly improve segmental lordosis (P < 0.001), total LL (P = 0.003), and disc height (P < 0.001) from preoperative to immediate postoperative and final follow-up (P = 0.004, P = 0.019, P ≤ 0.001, respectively). Conclusion. Although LLIF may provide less perioperative morbidity and shorter length of hospitalization, both techniques are safe and effective approaches to restore radiographic alignment and provide successful clinical outcomes in patients with adjacent segment degeneration following previous lumbar fusion surgery. Level of Evidence: 3