One-stage combined lumbo-sacral fusion, by anterior then posterior approach: clinical and radiological results

IntroductionWe intended to prospectively evaluate the clinical and radiological results of lumbo-sacral fusion achieved by a combined approach, anterior then posterior.Material and methods62 patients were consecutively treated at L5–S1, L4–L5 or L4–S1 for degenerative disc disease or low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis by combined surgery.ResultsMean operative time and blood loss were 209 min and 308 ml, respectively, including the two approaches. VAS, ODI and Roland–Morris scores significantly improved postoperatively at 1 year (p < 0.005) and fusion was obtained in all cases on the CT scan at 1-year follow-up. Segmental lordosis significantly improved postoperatively (p < 0.05) with a mean gain of 10.2° at L5–S1 and 5.5° at L4–L5.ConclusionThe combined procedure meets the requested criteria for a lumbar fusion in terms of clinical results, functional outcomes, fusion rates while restoring segmental lordosis and disc height. It cumulates the advantages of the anterior and posterior approach performed alone, especially for L5–S1.

[1]  T. Zdeblick,et al.  Is INFUSE Bone Graft Superior to Autograft Bone? An Integrated Analysis of Clinical Trials Using the LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[2]  J. Katz,et al.  A Review of the 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar Fusion Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial From the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2006, Spine.

[3]  Jin-Sung Kim,et al.  Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. , 2010, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[4]  P. Guigui,et al.  [Influence of disc height on outcome of posterolateral fusion]. , 2008, Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l'appareil moteur.

[5]  M. Pinto,et al.  Degenerative Disc Disease Treated With Combined Anterior and Posterior Arthrodesis and Posterior Instrumentation , 2002, Spine.

[6]  L. Rillardon,et al.  Influence de la hauteur discale sur le devenir d’une arthrodèse postérolaterale , 2008 .

[7]  Choon-Sung Lee,et al.  Fusion Rates of Instrumented Lumbar Spinal Arthrodesis according to Surgical Approach: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials , 2011, Clinics in orthopedic surgery.

[8]  J. Burkus,et al.  Radiographic Assessment of Interbody Fusion Using Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein Type 2 , 2003, Spine.

[9]  T. Stonecipher,et al.  Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Facet-Screw Fixation , 1989, Spine.

[10]  Patrick C. Hsieh,et al.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[11]  K. Foley,et al.  Surgical Interbody Research Group--radiographic assessment of interbody fusion devices: fusion criteria for anterior lumbar interbody surgery. , 2001, Neurosurgical focus.

[12]  T. Lund,et al.  Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: a literature review , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[13]  C. Branch,et al.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein type 2 with cylindrical interbody cages. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[14]  I. Karikari,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of Techniques and Outcomes , 2010, Spine.

[15]  P. Renton,et al.  The use of allograft (and avoidance of autograft) in anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a critical analysis , 2001, European Spine Journal.

[16]  Avinash G. Patwardhan,et al.  Comparison of Posterior and Transforaminal Approaches to Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2001, Spine.

[17]  Sang-Hun Lee,et al.  Clinical Outcomes of 3 Fusion Methods Through the Posterior Approach in the Lumbar Spine , 2006, Spine.

[18]  Pierre Roussouly,et al.  Sagittal balance disorders in severe degenerative spine. Can we identify the compensatory mechanisms? , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[19]  J Dubousset,et al.  [EOS stereo-radiography system: whole-body simultaneous anteroposterior and lateral radiographs with very low radiation dose]. , 2007, Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l'appareil moteur.

[20]  A. Athiviraham,et al.  Is Spinal Stenosis Better Treated Surgically or Nonsurgically? , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  G. Waddell,et al.  Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylosis: Updated Cochrane Review , 2005, Spine.

[22]  C. Barrey,et al.  Vascular anatomy in the lumbar spine investigated by three-dimensional computed tomography angiography: the concept of vascular window. , 2013, World neurosurgery.

[23]  Wafa Skalli,et al.  Standing Balance and Sagittal Plane Spinal Deformity: Analysis of Spinopelvic and Gravity Line Parameters , 2008, Spine.

[24]  W. Yue,et al.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[25]  D. Chan,et al.  Combined anterior interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw fixation in patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease , 2004, International Orthopaedics.

[26]  J. Gibson,et al.  The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. , 1999, Spine.