Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1371–1385 | Cite as

Reoperation of decompression alone or decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases: a systematic review

  • Zhao Lang
  • Jing-Sheng Li
  • Felix Yang
  • Yan Yu
  • Kamran Khan
  • Louis G. Jenis
  • Thomas D. Cha
  • James D. Kang
  • Guoan LiEmail author
Review

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this paper was to compare the reoperation rates, timing and causes between decompression alone and decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases through a systematic review of the published data.

Methods

A search of the literature was conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Reports that included reoperations after decompression alone and/or decompression plus fusion surgeries were selected using designed eligibility criteria. Comparative analysis of reoperation rates, timing and causes between the two surgeries was conducted.

Results

Thirty-two retrospective and three prospective studies were selected from 6401 papers of the literature search. The analysis of data reported in these studies revealed that both surgeries resulted in similar reoperation rates after the primary surgery. However, majority of reoperations following the fusion surgeries were due to adjacent-segment diseases, and following the decompression alone surgeries were due to the same-segment diseases. Reoperation rates were not found to decrease in patients operated more recently than those operated in early times.

Conclusions

Reoperation rates were similar following decompression alone or plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases. However, different underlying major causes exist between the two surgeries. There is no evidence showing that the reoperation rate has a trend to decline with newer surgical techniques used. The exact mechanisms of reoperation after both surgeries are still unclear. Further researches are necessary to investigate the mechanisms of reoperation for improvement of surgical techniques that aim to delay or prevent reoperation after lumbar surgery.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Reoperation Degenerative lumbar diseases Spinal decompression Spinal fusion Adjacent-segment diseases 

Notes

Funding

This research was partially supported by National Institute of Health (R21AR057989).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Thomas D. Cha has received research grants from North American Spine Society and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5681_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (242 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 241 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Parker SL, Godil SS, Mendenhall SK, Zuckerman SL, Shau DN, McGirt MJ (2014) Two-year comprehensive medical management of degenerative lumbar spine disease (lumbar spondylolisthesis, stenosis, or disc herniation): a value analysis of cost, pain, disability, and quality of life: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 21:143–149.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.spine1320 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ozdemir E, Paker N, Bugdayci D, Tekdos DD (2015) Quality of life and related factors in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a controlled study. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 28:749–753.  https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-140578 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drury T, Ames SE, Costi K, Beynnon B, Hall J (2009) Degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients with neurogenic claudication effects functional performance and self-reported quality of life. Spine 34:2812–2817.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b4836e Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Talaga S, Magiera Z, Kowalczyk B, Lubinska-Zadlo B (2014) Problems of patients with degenerative disease of the spine and their quality of life. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 16:617–627.  https://doi.org/10.5604/15093492.1135122 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Choudhri TF, Eck JC, Sharan A, Groff MW, Wang JC, Ghogawala Z, Dhall SS, Kaiser MG (2014) Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 10: lumbar fusion for stenosis without spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 21:62–66.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.spine14275 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bydon M, Macki M, Abt NB, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A (2015) Clinical and surgical outcomes after lumbar laminectomy: an analysis of 500 patients. Surg Neurol Int 6:S190–S193.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.156578 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang JC, Kim SG, Kim TW, Park KH (2013) Analysis of factors contributing to postoperative spinal instability after lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis. Korean J Spine 10:149–154.  https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2013.10.3.149 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hilibrand AS, Rand N (1999) Degenerative lumbar stenosis: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 7:239–249Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine 37:67–76.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820cccfb Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jancuska JM, Hutzler L, Protopsaltis TS, Bendo JA, Bosco J (2016) Utilization of lumbar spinal fusion in New York State: trends and disparities. Spine 41:1508–1514.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001567 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gunnar A, Sylvia IW (2014) The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the United States, 3rd edn. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons official website. http://www.boneandjointburden.org/2014-report/ii0/spine-low-back-and-neck-pain
  12. 12.
    Chang W, Yuwen P, Zhu Y, Wei N, Feng C, Zhang Y, Chen W (2017) Effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:637–650.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2685-z Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liang HF, Liu SH, Chen ZX, Fei QM (2017) Decompression plus fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 26:3084–3095.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5200-x Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Machado GC, Ferreira PH, Harris IA, Pinheiro MB, Koes BW, van Tulder M, Rzewuska M, Maher CG, Ferreira ML (2015) Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10:e0122800.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122800 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ulrich NH, Burgstaller JM, Pichierri G, Wertli MM, Farshad M, Porchet F, Steurer J, Held U (2017) Decompression surgery alone versus decompression plus fusion in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a Swiss Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study with 3 years of follow-up. Spine 42:E1077–E1086.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002068 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgstrom F, Fritzell P, Ohagen P, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2016) A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 374:1413–1423.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1513721 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, Dai F, Terrin N, Magge SN, Coumans JV, Harrington JF, Amin-Hanjani S, Schwartz JS, Sonntag VK, Barker FG 2nd, Benzel EC (2016) Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 374:1424–1434.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1508788 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goz V, Weinreb JH, Schwab F, Lafage V, Errico TJ (2014) Comparison of complications, costs, and length of stay of three different lumbar interbody fusion techniques: an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Spine J 14:2019–2027.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.11.050 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Proietti L, Scaramuzzo L, Schiro GR, Sessa S, Logroscino CA (2013) Complications in lumbar spine surgery: a retrospective analysis. Indian J Orthop 47:340–345.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.114909 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahn J, Tabaraee E, Bohl DD, Aboushaala K, Singh K (2015) Primary versus revision single-level minimally invasive lumbar discectomy: analysis of clinical outcomes and narcotic utilization. Spine 40:E1025–E1030.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000976 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kalakoti P, Missios S, Maiti T, Konar S, Bir S, Bollam P, Nanda A (2016) Inpatient outcomes and postoperative complications after primary versus revision lumbar spinal fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar disc disease: a National (nationwide) Inpatient Sample analysis, 2002–2011. World Neurosurg 85:114–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.08.020 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Österman H, Sund R, Seitsalo S, Keskimäki I (2003) Risk of multiple reoperations after lumbar discectomy: a population-based study. Spine 28:621–627.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200303150-00019 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phan K, Mobbs RJ (2016) Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine 41:E91–E100.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001161 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Campbell RC, Mobbs RJ, Lu VM, Xu J, Rao PJ, Phan K (2017) Posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob Spine J 7:482–490.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217701103 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shriver MF, Xie JJ, Tye EY, Rosenbaum BP, Kshettry VR, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2015) Lumbar microdiscectomy complication rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus 39:E6.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.focus15281 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joseph JR, Smith BW, La Marca F, Park P (2015) Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 39:E4.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.focus15278 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deyo RA, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Jarvik JG, Angier H, Mirza SK (2011) Revision surgery following operations for lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1979–1986.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01292 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lad SP, Babu R, Baker AA, Ugiliweneza B, Kong M, Bagley CA, Gottfried ON, Isaacs RE, Patil CG, Boakye M (2013) Complications, reoperation rates, and health-care cost following surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:E1621–E16210.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00730 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sato S, Yagi M, Machida M, Yasuda A, Konomi T, Miyake A, Fujiyoshi K, Kaneko S, Takemitsu M, Machida M, Yato Y, Asazuma T (2015) Reoperation rate and risk factors of elective spinal surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine J 15:1536–1544.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.009 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aizawa T, Ozawa H, Kusakabe T, Tanaka Y, Sekiguchi A, Hashimoto K, Kanno H, Morozumi N, Ishii Y, Sato T, Takahashi E, Kokubun S, Itoi E (2015) Reoperation rates after fenestration for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a 20-year period survival function method analysis. Eur Spine J 24:381–387.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3479-4 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klassen PD, Bernstein DT, Kohler HP, Arts MP, Weiner B, Miller LE, Thome C (2017) Bone-anchored annular closure following lumbar discectomy reduces risk of complications and reoperations within 90 days of discharge. J Pain Res 10:2047–2055.  https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S144500 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kukreja S, Kalakoti P, Ahmed O, Nanda A (2015) Predictors of reoperation-free survival following decompression-alone lumbar spine surgery for on-the-job injuries. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 135:41–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.04.012 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morgan-Hough CV, Jones PW, Eisenstein SM (2003) Primary and revision lumbar discectomy. A 16-year review from one centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:871–874Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Erbayraktar S, Acar F, Tekinsoy B, Acar Ü, Güner EM (2002) Outcome analysis of reoperations after lumbar discectomies: a report of 22 patients. Kobe J Med Sci 48:33–41Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cheng J, Wang H, Zheng W, Li C, Wang J, Zhang Z, Huang B, Zhou Y (2013) Reoperation after lumbar disc surgery in two hundred and seven patients. Int Orthop 37:1511–1517.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1925-2 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hong X, Liu L, Bao J, Shi R, Fan Y, Wu X (2015) Characterization and risk factor analysis for reoperation after microendoscopic diskectomy. Orthopedics 38:E490–E496.  https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20150603-57 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim CH, Chung CK, Park CS, Choi B, Kim MJ, Park BJ (2013) Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar herniated intervertebral disc disease: nationwide cohort study. Spine 38:581–590.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318274f9a7 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ghogawala Z, Benzel EC, Magge SN, Coumans JV, Harrington JF, Barker FG (2010) Lumbar spinal fusion reduces risk of re-operation after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis associated with grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis: initial results from the slip trial. Neurosurgery 67:542–543.  https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000386993.28390.FA Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hwang HJ, Park HK, Lee GS, Heo JY, Chang JC (2016) Predictors of reoperation after microdecompression in lumbar spinal stenosis. Korean J Spine 13:183–189.  https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2016.13.4.183 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hirabayashi S, Kumano K, Ogawa Y, Aota Y, Maehiro S (1993) Microdiscectomy and second operation for lumbar disc herniation. Spine 18:2206–2211Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leven D, Passias PG, Errico TJ, Lafage V, Bianco K, Lee A, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Spratt KF, Morgan TS, Gerling MC (2015) Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for intervertebral disc herniation: a subanalysis of eight-year sport data. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:1316–1325.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01287 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ebeling U, Kalbarcyk H, Reulen HJ (1989) Microsurgical reoperation following lumbar disc surgery. Timing, surgical findings, and outcome in 92 patients. J Neurosurg 70:397–404Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vaughan PA, Malcolm BW, Maistrelli GL (1988) Results of L4-L5 disc excision alone versus disc excision and fusion. Spine 13:690–695Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gerling MC, Leven D, Passias PG, Lafage V, Bianco K, Lee A, Morgan TS, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Spratt KF, Radcliff K, Errico TJ (2017) Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a subanalysis of the 8-year data from the SPORT trial. Spine 42:1559–1569.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002196 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Martin BI, Mirza SK, Franklin GM, Lurie JD, MacKenzie TA, Deyo RA (2013) Hospital and surgeon variation in complications and repeat surgery following incident lumbar fusion for common degenerative diagnoses. Health Serv Res 48:1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01434.x Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA (2007) Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine 32:382–387.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000254104.55716.46 Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Levin JM, Alentado VJ, Healy AT, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2018) Superior segment facet joint violation during instrumented lumbar fusion is associated with higher reoperation rates and diminished improvement in quality of life. Clin Spine Surg 31:E36–E41.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000566 Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, Vorwald P, Jabbour P, Bono CM, Goldfarb N, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 33:1701–1707.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817bb956 Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Irmola TM, Hakkinen A, Jarvenpaa S, Marttinen I, Vihtonen K, Neva M (2018) Reoperation rates following instrumented lumbar spine fusion. Spine 43:295–301.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002291 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Macki M, Bydon M, Weingart R, Sciubba D, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A, Witham T (2015) Posterolateral fusion with interbody for lumbar spondylolisthesis is associated with less repeat surgery than posterolateral fusion alone. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 138:117–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.08.014 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kim CH, Chung CK, Shin S, Choi BR, Kim MJ, Park BJ, Choi Y (2015) The relationship between diabetes and the reoperation rate after lumbar spinal surgery: a nationwide cohort study. Spine J 15:866–874.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.01.029 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Maruenda JI, Barrios C, Garibo F, Maruenda B (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 25:1550–1557.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4469-5 Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Allam Y, Elsaghir H, Franke J (2004) Reoperation rate after instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a report on 1680 cases. Spine 29:2516–2520.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000144833.63581.c1 Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nemani VM, Aichmair A, Taher F, Lebl DR, Hughes AP, Sama AA, Cammisa FP, Girardi FP (2014) Rate of revision surgery after stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 39:E326–E331.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000141 Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ (1993) Lumbar spinal fusion: a cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine 18:1463–1470Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Malter AD, McNeney B, Loeser JD, Deyo RA (1998) 5-Year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery. Spine 23:814–820.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199804010-00015 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vorhies JS, Hernandez-Boussard T, Alamin T (2018) Treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with fusion or decompression alone results in similar rates of reoperation at 5 years. Clin Spine Surg 31:E74–E79.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000564 Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Baranowska A, Baranowska J, Baranowski P (2016) Analysis of reasons for failure of surgery for degenerative disease of lumbar spine. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 18:117–129.  https://doi.org/10.5604/15093492.1205004 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA (2007) Are lumbar spine reoperation rates falling with greater use of fusion surgery and new surgical technology? Spine 32:2119–2126.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318145a56a Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vik A, Zwart JA, Hulleberg G, Nygaard OP (2001) Eight year outcome after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a comparison of reoperated and not reoperated patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 143:607–610Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shabat S, Arinzon Z, Gepstein R, Folman Y (2011) Long-term follow-up of revision decompressive lumbar spinal surgery in elderly patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:142–145.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181de4b61 Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bydon M, Macki M, De La Garza-Ramos R, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Witham TF, Bydon A (2015) Smoking as an independent predictor of reoperation after lumbar laminectomy: a study of 500 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 22:288–293.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.SPINE14186 Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bohl DD, Ahn J, Mayo B, Massel DH, Hijji FY, Narain AS, Long WW, Modi K, Basques B, Singh K (2016) Does greater body mass index increase the risk for revision procedures following a single-level minimally invasive lumbar discectomy? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:816–821.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001340 Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gerling MC, Leven D, Passias PG, Lafage V, Bianco K, Lee A, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Spratt KF, Radcliff K, Errico TJ (2016) Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for lumbar stenosis a subanalysis of the 8-year data from the SPORT trial. Spine 41:901–909.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001361 Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Virk SS, Diwan A, Phillips FM, Sandhu H, Khan SN (2017) What is the Rate of revision discectomies after primary discectomy on a national scale? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:2752–2762.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5467-6 Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sherman J, Cauthen J, Schoenberg D, Burns M, Reaven NL, Griffith SL (2010) Economic impact of improving outcomes of lumbar discectomy. Spine J 10:108–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.08.453 Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ambrossi GL, McGirt MJ, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Long DM (2009) Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after single-level lumbar discectomy: incidence and health care cost analysis. Neurosurgery 65:574–578.  https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000350224.36213.f9 Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Parker SL, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ (2012) Factors influencing 2-year health care costs in patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion procedures. J Neurosurg Spine 16:323–328.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.12.SPINE11750 Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau D, Mendelhall SK, Aaronson O, Cheng J, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2015) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of revision fusion for lumbar pseudoarthrosis: defining the value of surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:101–105.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318269cc4a Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, Aaronson O, Cheng JS, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2012) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: defining the value of surgical intervention. J Neurosurg Spine 16:135–140.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.9.SPINE11308 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, Devin CJ, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ (2012) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of laminectomy and extension of instrumented fusion for adjacent-segment disease: defining the value of surgical intervention. J Neurosurg Spine 16:141–146.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.9.SPINE11419 Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Glassman SD, Dimar JR, Johnson JR, Minkow R (1998) Preoperative SF-36 responses as a predictor of reoperation following lumbar fusion. Orthopedics 21:1201–1203Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Narain AS, Hijji FY, Bohl DD, Yom KH, Kudaravalli KT, Singh K (2017) Is body mass index a risk factor for revision procedures after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? Clin Spine Surg 31:E85–E91.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000547 Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kumar MN, Jacquot F, Hall H (2001) Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 10:309–313Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schulte TL, Leistra F, Bullmann V, Osada N, Vieth V, Marquardt B, Lerner T, Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L (2007) Disc height reduction in adjacent segments and clinical outcome 10 years after lumbar 360 degrees fusion. Eur Spine J 16:2152–2158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0515-7 Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Chen WJ, Lai PL, Tai CL, Chen LH, Niu CC (2004) The effect of sagittal alignment on adjacent joint mobility after lumbar instrumentation—a biomechanical study of lumbar vertebrae in a porcine model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19:763–768.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.05.010 Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Volkheimer D, Malakoutian M, Oxland TR, Wilke HJ (2015) Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature. Eur Spine J 24:1882–1892.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4040-9 Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chen CS, Ck Cheng, Liu CL (2002) A biomechanical comparison of posterolateral fusion and posterior fusion in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:53–63Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Heo Y, Park JH, Seong HY, Lee YS, Jeon SR, Rhim SC, Roh SW (2015) Symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration at the L3-4 level after fusion surgery at the L4-5 level: evaluation of the risk factors and 10-year incidence. Eur Spine J 24:2474–2480.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4188-3 Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wang H, Ma L, Yang D, Wang T, Liu S, Yang S, Ding W (2017) Incidence and risk factors of adjacent segment disease following posterior decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:E6032.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006032 Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Liang J, Dong Y, Zhao H (2014) Risk factors for predicting symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration requiring surgery in patients after posterior lumbar fusion. J Orthop Surg Res 9:97.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-014-0097-0 Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ou CY, Lee TC, Lee TH, Huang YH (2015) Impact of body mass index on adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. Neurosurgery 76:396–401.  https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000627 Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lee JC, Kim Y, Soh JW, Shin BJ (2014) Risk factors of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after lumbar spinal fusion: comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion. Spine 39:E339–E345.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000164 Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Zhong ZM, Deviren V, Tay B, Burch S, Berven SH (2017) Adjacent segment disease after instrumented fusion for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis: incidence and risk factors. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 156:29–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.02.020 Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ghasemi AA (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion: an analysis of possible risk factors. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 143:15–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.02.004 Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Chen WJ, Lai PL, Niu CC, Chen LH, Fu TS, Wong CB (2001) Surgical treatment of adjacent instability after lumbar spine fusion. Spine 26:E519–E524Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Srinivas GR, Kumar MN, Deb A (2017) Adjacent disc stress following floating lumbar spine fusion: a finite element study. Asian Spine J 11:538–547.  https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.4.538 Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Malakoutian M, Volkheimer D, Street J, Dvorak MF, Wilke HJ, Oxland TR (2015) Do in vivo kinematic studies provide insight into adjacent segment degeneration? A qualitative systematic literature review. Eur Spine J 24:1865–1881.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3992-0 Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Zhong W, Driscoll SJ, Tsai TY, Wang S, Mao H, Cha TD, Wood KB, Li G (2015) In vivo dynamic changes of dimensions in the lumbar intervertebral foramen. Spine J 15:1653–1659.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.015 Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Rao RD, David KS, Wang M (2005) Biomechanical changes at adjacent segments following anterior lumbar interbody fusion using tapered cages. Spine 30:2772–2776Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Akamaru T, Kawahara N, Tim Yoon S, Minamide A, Su Kim K, Tomita K, Hutton WC (2003) Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 28:1560–1566Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Frelinghuysen P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr (2003) Lumbar total disc replacement part I: rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Spine 28:1560–1566Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Sengupta DK (2004) Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 35:43–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00087-7 Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Stoll TM, Dubois G (2005) Posterior dynamic stabilization systems: DYNESYS. Orthop Clin North Am 36:363–372.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2005.03.001 Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Van de Kelft E, Verguts L (2012) Clinical outcome of monosegmental total disc replacement for lumbar disc disease with ball-and-socket prosthesis (Maverick): prospective study with four-year follow-up. World Neurosurg 78:355–363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2011.10.043 Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Radcliff K, Spivak J, Darden B 2nd, Janssen M, Bernard T, Zigler J (2016) Five-year reoperation rates of 2-level lumbar total disk replacement versus fusion: results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Clin Spine Surg 31:37–42.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000476 Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kanayama M, Togawa D, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Oha F (2009) Motion-preserving surgery can prevent early breakdown of adjacent segments: comparison of posterior dynamic stabilization with spinal fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:463–467.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181934512 Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G, Lambiris E (2004) Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results. Spine 29:735–742Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kaito T, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Makino T, Fuji T, Yonenobu K (2010) Induction of early degeneration of the adjacent segment after posterior lumbar interbody fusion by excessive distraction of lumbar disc space. J Neurosurg Spine 12:671–679.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.12.SPINE08823 Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Kaito T, Hosono N, Fuji T, Makino T, Yonenobu K (2011) Disc space distraction is a potent risk factor for adjacent disc disease after PLIF. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:1499–1507.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1343-0 Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, Sugrue P, Salehi S, Ondra S, Liu JC (2007) 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. J Neurosurg Spine 7:379–386.  https://doi.org/10.3171/spi-07/10/379 Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Chun DS, Baker KC, Hsu WK (2015) Lumbar pseudarthrosis: a review of current diagnosis and treatment. Neurosurg Focus 39:E10.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.focus15292 Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kayaoglu CR, Calikoglu C, Binler S (2003) Re-operation after lumbar disc surgery: results in 85 cases. J Int Med Res 31:318–323.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147323000303100410 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedic Bioengineering Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryNewton-Wellesley Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolNewtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Spine Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan HospitalFourth Clinical Medical College of Peking UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Sargent CollegeBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Spine Surgery, Tongji HospitalTongji University School of MedicineShanghaiChina
  5. 5.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  6. 6.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryBrigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations