DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Is Adjacent Segment Disease More Frequent in Proximal Levels in Comparison with Distal Levels? Based on Radiological Data of at Least 2 Years Follow Up with More than 2 Level Thoracolumbar Fusions

  • Kim, Jung-Ho (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Ryu, Dal-Sung (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Yoon, Seung-Hwan (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Inha University)
  • Received : 2019.06.21
  • Accepted : 2019.08.05
  • Published : 2019.09.01

Abstract

Objective : The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine which of the proximal adjacent segment disease (ASD) and distal ASD was more prevalent and what parameters is more related to ASD in proximal levels and distal levels after more than 2 levels fusions. Methods : The medical records were reviewed retrospectively for 856 cases. A total of 66 cases of ASD were enrolled. On preop magnetic resonance imaging, disc degeneration was measured at the upper and lower parts of surgically treated levels and confirmed by the commonly used Pfirrmann grade. Segmental flexibility in sagittal plane was embodied in segment range of motion (ROM) obtained through flexion and extension X-ray before surgery. Coronal angle was recorded as methods Cobb's angle including fusion levels preoperatively. For the comparison of categorical variables between two independent groups, the chi-square test and Fisher exact test were performed. Results : Proximal ASD and distal ASD were 37/856 (4.32%) and 29/856 (3.39%), respectively. The incidence of proximal ASD was relatively high but insignificant differences. In comparison between ASD group and non ASD group, proximal Pfirmman was higher in proximal ASD and distal Pfirmman was higher in distal ASD group (p=0.005, p<0.008, respectively). However, in the ROM, proximal ROM was higher in proximal ASD, but distal ROM was not different between the two groups (p<0.0001, p=0.995, respectively). Coronal angle was not quite different in both groups (p=0.846). Conclusion : In spite of higher frequency in ASD in proximal level in spinal fusion, it is not clear that incidence of ASD in proximal level is not higher than that of distal ASD group in more than 2 level thoracolumbar fusions. Not only Pfirrmann grade but also proximal segmental ROM is risk factor for predicting the occurrence of ASD in patients more than 2 level of thoracolumbar spine fusion operation excluding L5S1.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn SS, So WS, Ku MG, Kim SH, Kim DW, Lee BH : Radiologic findings and risk factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion : a retrospective matched cohort study with 3-year follow-up using MRI. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 59 : 129-136, 2016 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2016.59.2.129
  2. Anandjiwala J, Seo JY, Ha KY, Oh IS, Shin DC : Adjacent segment degeneration after instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion: a prospective cohort study with a minimum five-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 20 : 1951-1960, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1917-0
  3. Axelsson P, Johnsson R, Stromqvist B, Arvidsson M, Herrlin K : Posterolateral lumbar fusion. Outcome of 71 consecutive operations after 4 (2-7) years. Acta Orthop Scand 65 : 309-314, 1994 https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679408995459
  4. Bisschop A, Holewijn RM, Kingma I, Stadhouder A, Vergroesen PP, van der Veen AJ, et al. : The effects of single-level instrumented lumbar laminectomy on adjacent spinal biomechanics. Global Spine J 5 : 39-48, 2015
  5. Chen WJ, Lai PL, Niu CC, Chen LH, Fu TS, Wong CB : Surgical treatment of adjacent instability after lumbar spine fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26 : E519-E524, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200111150-00024
  6. Guyer RD, Patterson M, Ohnmeiss DD : Failed back surgery syndrome: diagnostic evaluation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14 : 534-543, 2006 https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200609000-00003
  7. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M : Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4(6 Suppl) : 190S-194S, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007
  8. Lawrence BD, Wang J, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer J, Norvell DC, Brodke DS : Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(22 Suppl) : S123-S132, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d60d8
  9. Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee SW, Ahn YJ, Kim YT, Lee DH, et al. : Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 18 : 1637-1643, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1060-3
  10. Majid K, Fischgrund JS : Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: trends in management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16 : 208-215, 2008 https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200804000-00004
  11. Nakashima H, Kawakami N, Tsuji T, Ohara T, Suzuki Y, Saito T, et al. : Adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: based on cases with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40 : E831-E841, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000917
  12. Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB : Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37 : 67-76, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820cccfb
  13. Ryu DS, Park JY, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS, Cho YE, et al. : Surgical outcomes after segmental limited surgery for adjacent segment disease: the consequences of makeshift surgery. World Neurosurg 110 : e258-e265, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.10.150
  14. Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL : Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 : 970-981, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199604150-00013
  15. Zhang C, Berven SH, Fortin M, Weber MH : Adjacent segment degeneration versus disease after lumbar spine fusion for degenerative pathology: a systematic review with meta-analysis of the literature. Clin Spine Surg 29 : 21-29, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000328