Careful insertion of pedicle screws is necessary, especially at C3 to C5, even when using a CT-based navigation system. Pedicle screws tend to be laterally perforated.

Study DesignMulticenter analysis of two groups of patients surgically treated for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis.PurposeTo compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis.Overview of LiteratureSurgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is widely performed. However, few reports have compared the outcome of PLF to that of PLIF for degenerative L4 unstable spondylolisthesis.MethodsPatients with L4 unstable spondylolisthesis with Meyerding grade II or more, slip of >10° or >4 mm upon maximum flexion and extension bending, and posterior opening of >5 degree upon flexion bending were studied. Patients were treated from January 2008 to January 2010. Patients who underwent PLF (n=12) and PLIF (n=19) were followed-up for >2 years. Radiographic findings and clinical outcomes evaluated by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were compared between the two groups. Radiographic evaluation included slip angle, translation, slip angle and translation during maximum flexion and extension bending, intervertebral disc height, lumbar lordotic angle, and fusion rate.ResultsJOA scores of the PLF group before surgery and at final follow-up were 12.3±4.8 and 24.1±3.7, respectively; those of the PLIF group were 14.7±4.8 and 24.2±7.8, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. Correction of slip estimated from postoperative slip angle, translation, and maintenance of intervertebral disc height in the PLIF group was significantly (p<0.05) better than those in the PLF group. However, there was no significant difference in lumbar lordotic angle, slip angle and translation angle upon maximum flexion, or extension bending. Fusion rates of the PLIF and PLF groups had no significant difference.ConclusionsThe L4–L5 level posterior instrumented fusion for unstable spondylolisthesis using both PLF and PLIF could ameliorate clinical symptoms when local stability is achieved.

Study DesignSeventy-five patients who had been treated for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) were reviewed retrospectively.PurposeInvasion into the paravertebral muscle can cause major problems after laminectomy for LSS. To address these problems, we performed spinous process-splitting laminectomy. We present a comparative study of decompression of LSS using 2 approaches.Overview of LiteratureThere are no other study has investigated the lumbar spinal instability after spinous process-splitting laminectomy.MethodsThis study included 75 patients who underwent laminectomy for the treatment of LSS and who were observed through follow-ups for more than 2 years. Fifty-five patients underwent spinous process-splitting laminectomy (splitting group) and 20 patients underwent conventional laminectomy (conventional group). We evaluated the clinical and radiographic results of each surgical procedure.ResultsJapanese Orthopaedic Association score improved significantly in both groups two years postoperatively. The following values were all significantly lower, as shown with p-values, in the splitting group compared to the conventional group: average operating time (p=0.002), postoperative C-reactive protein level (p=0.006), the mean postoperative number of days until returning to normal body temperature (p=0.047), and the mean change in angulation 2 years postoperatively (p=0.007). The adjacent segment degeneration occurred in 6 patients (10.9%) in the splitting group and 11 patients (55.0%) in the conventional group.ConclusionsIn this study, the spinous process-splitting laminectomy was shown to be less invasive and more stable for patients with LSS, compared to the conventional laminectomy.

No abstract

Study Design: This is a retrospective single-center and single-surgeon study. Objective: We investigated the correlation between lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) and spinal mobility 2 years after posterior spinal fusion with pedicle screws for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) for optimal LIV selection. Summary of Background: Spinal motion can become limited in scoliosis patients who undergo posterior spinal fusion. However, few reports exist on spinal mobility after posterior spinal fusion for AIS and the relationship between the LIV and mobility is unknown. We hypothesize that mobility limitation increases as the LIV is moved inferiorly. Data: Of 72 consecutive patients who received posterior spinal fusion using pedicle screws for AIS between October 2009 and August 2015, 66 patients (5 male and 61 female, mean age: 14.9 y) were enrolled. Materials and Methods: In total, 66 patients were retrospectively reviewed after stratification according to LIV level. Follow-up rate was 91.7%. Patients were examined for the fingertip-to-floor distance (FFD) before and 2 years after surgery. FFD was measured from the tips of the middle fingers to the floor with the barefoot subject bent maximally forward and the feet together and knees straight. Clinical outcome was assessed using Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire (SRS-22r) scores and a visual analog scale for low back pain before and at 2 years postoperatively. Results: The median number of fused vertebrae was 9 (range: 4–15). The LIV was T11–12 in 15 patients, L1 in 11 patients, L2 in 10 patients, and L3 in 30 patients. The median decrease in FFD according to LIV at 2 years after surgery was T11–12: 0 cm, L1: 0 cm, L2: 5.5 cm, and L3: 10 cm. Thus, limited FFD became significantly more severe as the LIV was moved downwards (P<0.01). There were no significant correlations between limited FFD and SRS-22r or pain visual analog scale scores at 2 years postoperatively. Conclusions: FFD became significantly more restricted as the LIV was moved inferiorly but clinical results appeared unaffected by limited FFD.