Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pseudarthrosis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

  • 2457 Accesses

Abstract

Pseudarthrosis is not unique to minimally invasive fusion techniques. Lumbar pseudarthrosis can result in significant back pain and disability and is a major cause of failed spinal surgery. Fortunately, the rates of fusion for minimally invasive techniques are high and appear to be similar to those of standard open techniques. An intimate understanding of the fusion process will allow for optimizing the index procedure in hopes of preventing pseudarthrosis. Establishing the diagnosis of symptomatic lumbar pseudarthrosis can often be challenging. This requires careful correlation between the clinical presentation and radiologic studies, typically dynamic plain film radiographs and thin-cut CT scan with reconstructions. Once the diagnosis of pseudarthrosis is made, conservative and surgical treatment options can be considered. Conservative treatments typically involve activity modification in combination with core strengthening and aerobic exercises. Surgical treatments are individually based on assessment of spinal balance, previous treatments, hardware stability, pseudarthrosis morphology, and graft options.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Reid JJ, Johnson JS, Wang JC. Challenges to bone formation in spinal fusion. J Biomech. 2011;44(2):213–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heggeness MH, Esses SI, Mody DR. A histologic study of lumbar pseudarthrosis. Spine. 1993;18(8):1016–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Whang PG, O’Hara BJ, Ratliff J, Sharan A, Brown Z, Vaccaro AR. Pseudarthrosis following lumbar interbody fusion using bone morphogenetic protein-2: intraoperative and histopathologic findings. Orthopedics [Internet]. 2008;31(10). Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19226004. Cited 31 Dec 2011.

  4. Heggeness MH, Esses SI. Classification of pseudarthroses of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1991;16(8 Suppl):S449–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bono CM, Lee CK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine. 2004;29(4):455–63; discussion Z5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22173610. Cited 16 Jan 2012.

  7. Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982;120(3):343–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu RH, Fraser JF, Härtl R. Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine. 2010;35(26):2273–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(8):479–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Blondel B, Adetchessi T, Pech-Gourg G, Métellus P, Dufour H, Fuentes S. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion through a unilateral approach and percutaneous osteosynthesis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(6):595–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ntoukas V, Müller A. Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2010;53(1):21–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim HS, Park KH, Ju CI, Kim SW, Lee SM, Shin H. Minimally invasive multi-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneously inserted spinal fixation system : technical tips, surgical outcomes. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2011;50(5):441–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Singh AK, Ramappa M, Bhatia CK, Krishna M. Less invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion and obesity: clinical outcomes and return to work. Spine. 2010;35(24):2116–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Saraph V, Lerch C, Walochnik N, Bach CM, Krismer M, Wimmer C. Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(5):425–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim J-S, Choi WG, Lee S-H. Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine J. 2010;10(5):404–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee S-H, Kang B-U, Jeon SH, Park JD, Maeng DH, Choi Y-G, et al. Revision surgery of the lumbar spine: anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;5(3):228–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee DY, Lee S-H, Maeng DH. Two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a minimum 3-year follow-up study. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2010;50(8):645–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tobler WD, Ferrara LA. The presacral retroperitoneal approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective study of clinical outcomes, complications and fusion rates at a follow-up of two years in 26 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(7):955–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kang J, An H, Hilibrand A, Yoon ST, Kavanagh E, Boden S. Grafton® & local bone has comparable outcomes to iliac crest bone in instrumented single level lumbar fusions. Spine [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22076647. Cited 23 Mar 2012.

  21. Lawrence JP, Waked W, Gillon TJ, White AP, Spock CR, Biswas D, et al. rhBMP-2 (ACS and CRM formulations) overcomes pseudarthrosis in a New Zealand white rabbit posterolateral fusion model. Spine. 2007;32(11):1206–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee K-B, Johnson JS, Song K-J, Taghavi CE, Wang JC. Use of autogenous bone graft compared with RhBMP in high-risk patients: a comparison of fusion rates and time to fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22214928. Cited 19 Mar 2012.

  23. Mannion RJ, Nowitzke AM, Wood MJ. Promoting fusion in minimally invasive lumbar interbody stabilization with low-dose bone morphogenic protein-2 – but what is the cost? Spine J. 2011;11(6):527–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rihn JA, Kirkpatrick K, Albert TJ. Graft options in posterolateral and posterior interbody lumbar fusion. Spine. 2010;35(17):1629–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Taghavi CE, Lee K-B, Keorochana G, Tzeng S-T, Yoo JH, Wang JC. Bone morphogenetic protein-2 and bone marrow aspirate with allograft as alternatives to autograft in instrumented revision posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a minimum two-year follow-up study. Spine. 2010;35(11):1144–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shen FH, Samartzis D. Assessment of lumbar fusion: importance of dynamic plain standing x-rays. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(6):955–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brodsky AE, Kovalsky ES, Khalil MA. Correlation of radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical exploration. Spine. 1991;16(6 Suppl):S261–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ho JM, Ben-Galim PJ, Weiner BK, Karbach LE, Reitman CA, Heggeness MH, et al. Toward the establishment of optimal computed tomographic parameters for the assessment of lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2011;11(7):636–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Glassman SD, Anagnost SC, Parker A, Burke D, Johnson JR, Dimar JR. The effect of cigarette smoking and smoking cessation on spinal fusion. Spine. 2000;25(20):2608–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Simmons Jr JW, Mooney V, Thacker I. Pseudarthrosis after lumbar spine fusion: nonoperative salvage with pulsed electromagnetic fields. Am J Orthop. 2004;33(1):27–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, Horton W, Dimar JR. Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine. 2005;30(6):682–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Rhim S, Cheh G. Pseudarthrosis in long adult spinal deformity instrumentation and fusion to the sacrum: prevalence and risk factor analysis of 144 cases. Spine. 2006;31(20):2329–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS. Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Silber JS, Vaccaro AR. Iliac crest bone graft harvest and fusion techniques. In: Ozgur B, Benzel E, Garfin S, editors. Minimally invasive spine surgery: a practical guide to anatomy and techniques. London: Springer; 2009. p. 159–65.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Arrington ED, Smith WJ, Chambers HG, Bucknell AL, Davino NA. Complications of iliac crest bone graft harvesting. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329:300–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schwartz CE, Martha JF, Kowalski P, Wang DA, Bode R, Li L, et al. Prospective evaluation of chronic pain associated with posterior autologous iliac crest bone graft harvest and its effect on postoperative outcome. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:49.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim DH, Rhim R, Li L, Martha J, Swaim BH, Banco RJ, et al. Prospective study of iliac crest bone graft harvest site pain and morbidity. Spine J. 2009;9(11):886–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Howard JM, Glassman SD, Carreon LY. Posterior iliac crest pain after posterolateral fusion with or without iliac crest graft harvest. Spine J. 2011;11(6):534–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Merritt AL, Spinnicke A, Pettigrew K, Alamin TF. Gluteal-sparing approach for posterior iliac crest bone graft: description of a new technique and assessment of morbidity in ninety-two patients after spinal fusion. Spine. 2010;35(14):1396–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Salerni AA. Minimally invasive removal or revision of lumbar spinal fixation. Spine J. 2004;4(6):701–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Daffner SD, Wang JC. Migrated XLIF cage: case report and discussion of surgical technique. Orthopedics. 2010;33(7):518.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USC Spine Center, UCLA School of Medicine, Santa Monica, CA, USA

    Brandon J. Rebholz MD & Beck D. McAllister MD

  2. USC Spine Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Jeffrey C. Wang MD

Authors
  1. Brandon J. Rebholz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beck D. McAllister MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey C. Wang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey C. Wang MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Frank Phillips

  2. Scoliosis and Spine Tumor Center, Texas Back Institutes, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Plano, Plano, Texas, USA

    Isador Lieberman

  3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

    David Polly

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rebholz, B.J., McAllister, B.D., Wang, J.C. (2014). Pseudarthrosis. In: Phillips, F., Lieberman, I., Polly, D. (eds) Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5674-2_39

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5674-2_39

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5673-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5674-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation