Preoperative Predictable Factors for the Occurrence of Adjacent Segment Degeneration Requiring Second Operation after Spinal Fusion at Isolated L4–L5 Level

Abstract

Study Design Retrospective study.

Objective The purpose of this study was to clarify (1) the overall prevalence of radiologic and clinical adjacent segment disease (ASD), (2) the prevalence of radiologic ASD at cranial versus caudal adjacent segments, and (3) preoperative risk factors and preoperative radiologic features associated with radiologic disc degeneration of the cranial and caudal adjacent segments.

Methods A total of 154 patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion and screw-rod fixation at the L4–L5 level were retrospectively evaluated more than 2 years after surgery. We analyzed demographic factors and radiographic features. Special focus was preoperative radiographic features of patients who required additional surgery. These patients were studied to detect risk factors for clinical deterioration.

Results Of 154 patients, 103 (66.8%) showed radiologic degeneration at an adjacent segment after surgery—92 (59.7%) at the cranial adjacent segment and 61 (39.6%) at the caudal adjacent segment—and 10 patients (6.4%) required second operation because of radicular pain as well as severe back pain or spinal instability with back pain and neurologic deficits. Age, body mass index (BMI), and preexisting stenosis at the cranial adjacent segment were identified as important risk factors for clinical ASD requiring second operation.

Conclusion Age, BMI, and preexisting stenosis at the cranial adjacent segment were the most important risk factors for clinical ASD requiring a second operation. Careful consideration is warranted when these risk factors are present.

Keywords

adjacent segment degeneration - spinal fusion - spinal stenosis

• References

• 1 Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS, Cappuccino A, McAfee PC. The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine 1997; 22 (22) 2655-2663
• 2 Lee CK, Langrana NA. Lumbosacral spinal fusion. A biomechanical study. Spine 1984; 9 (6) 574-581
• 3 Cho KS, Kang SG, Yoo DS, Huh PW, Kim DS, Lee SB. Risk factors and surgical treatment for symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spine fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2009; 46 (5) 425-430
• 4 Cheh G, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG , et al. Adjacent segment disease followinglumbar/thoracolumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine 2007; 32 (20) 2253-2257
• 5 Hyun SJ, Kim YB, Hong HJ , et al. Predictable Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Degeneration After Lumbar Fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2007; 41: 88-94
• 6 Vanharanta H, Floyd T, Ohnmeiss DD, Hochschuler SH, Guyer RD. The relationship of facet tropism to degenerative disc disease. Spine 1993; 18 (8) 1000-1005
• 7 Kim KH, Lee SH, Shim CS , et al. Adjacent Segment Disease After Interbody Fusion and Pedicle Screw Fixations for Isolated L4-L5 Spondylolisthesis: A Minimum Five-Year Follow-up. Spine 2010; 32: 2253-2257
• 8 Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 2004; 29 (17) 1938-1944
• 9 Aiki H, Ohwada O, Kobayashi H , et al. Adjacent segment stenosis after lumbar fusion requiring second operation. J Orthop Sci 2005; 10 (5) 490-495
• 10 Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16 (4) 338-345
• 11 Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S. Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord 1995; 8 (6) 464-473
• 12 Chou WY, Hsu CJ, Chang WN, Wong CY. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal posterolateral fusion with instrumentation in elderly patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2002; 122 (1) 39-43
• 13 Etebar S, Cahill DW. Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg 1999; 90 (2, Suppl): 163-169
• 14 Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Hsu WK, Dawson EG. L5-S1 segment survivorship and clinical outcome analysis after L4-L5 isolated fusion. Spine 2003; 28 (12) 1275-1280 , discussion 1280
• 15 Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee SW , et al. Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (11) 1637-1643
• 16 Ahn DK, Park HS, Choi DJ, Kim KS, Yang SJ. Survival and prognostic analysis of adjacent segments after spinal fusion. Clin Orthop Surg 2010; 2 (3) 140-147
• 17 Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M , et al. Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 2008; 33 (15) 1701-1707
• 18 Ahn DK, Lee S, Jeong KW , et al. Adjacent Segment failure after Lumbar Spine Fusion: Controlled Study for Risk Factors. J Korean Orthop Assoc 2005; 40: 203-208
• 19 Farfan HF, Sullivan JD. The relation of facet orientation to intervertebral disc failure. Can J Surg 1967; 10 (2) 179-185
• 20 Chosa E, Goto K, Totoribe K, Tajima N. Analysis of the effect of lumbar spine fusion on the superior adjacent intervertebral disk in the presence of disk degeneration, using the three-dimensional finite element method. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17 (2) 134-139
• 21 Nakai S, Yoshizawa H, Kobayashi S. Long-term follow-up study of posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord 1999; 12 (4) 293-299
• 22 Throckmorton TW, Hilibrand AS, Mencio GA, Hodge A, Spengler DM. The impact of adjacent level disc degeneration on health status outcomes following lumbar fusion. Spine 2003; 28 (22) 2546-2550
• 23 Guigui P, Lambert P, Lassale B, Deburge A. [Long-term outcome at adjacent levels of lumbar arthrodesis]. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 1997; 83 (8) 685-696