In the era of recombinant BMP, does additional anterior stabilization add value to a posterolateral fusion?

ABSTRACT

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Clinical question or objective: Is there a benefit to additional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) if a solid posterolateral (PL) fusion can be achieved with routine bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) use in low-grade spondylolisthesis?

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients who had undergone surgery for grade I or II lumbar spondylolisthesis stratified into two groups. Group 1 had 46 patients who underwent TLIF along with PL instrumented fusion. Group 2 had 40 patients who underwent PL instrumented fusion alone. In both groups, adequate posterior decompression with pedicle screw instrumentation was performed and rhBMP-7 was used. All patients were evaluated clinically using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and by independent radiological examination at 3 and 12 months.

Results: At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of fusion. In addition, there were no differences in the proportion of patients who had a minimal clinically significant difference in their ODI. There was a similar rate of complications between each cohort.

Conclusions: The use of BMP was associated with a high rate of PL lumbar fusion. In the presence of a PL fusion, there appears to be little clinical benefit to additional anterior TLIF in degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Final class of evidence-treatment
Study design
RCT
Cohort	•
Case control
Case series
Methods
Concealed allocation (RCT)
Intention to treat (RCT)
Blinded/independent evaluation of primary outcome
F/U ≥ 85%	•
Adequate sample size	•
Control for confounding
Overall class of evidence	III

The definiton of the different classes of evidence is available here.

• 1 Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Bullis D et al. 1992; Results of in situ fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord 5 (4) 433-442
• 2 Lee CK, Vessa P, Lee JK. 1995; Chronic disabling low back pain syndrome caused by internal disc derangements. The results of disc excision and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 20 (3) 356-361
• 3 Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR et al. 2008; Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8 (6) 968-974
• 4 Crawford NR, Cagli S, Sonntag VK et al. 2001; Biomechanics of grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Part 1: in vitro model. J Neurosurg 94 (Suppl. 01) 45-50
• 5 Dantas FL, Prandini MN, Ferreira MA. 2007; Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in adult spondylolisthesis. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 65 (3B) 764-770
• 6 Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ et al. 1997; Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesi. Spine 22 (2) 210-219 discussion 219–220
• 7 La Rosa G, Conti A, Cacciola F et al. 2003; Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion?. J Neurosurg 99 (Suppl. 02) 143-150
• 8 Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. 2011; A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J 11 (6) 471-491