Spondylolysis with pseudarthrosis may be treated surgically by repairing the spondylolysis using the smiley face rod (SFR) technique. The SFR technique can avoid adjacent segmental disease caused by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), which is one of the main surgical techniques to treat isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. A 59-year-old woman had been playing softball since she was 12 years old and was a member of a prefectural representative team. She sought treatment because of numbness in her left lower limb and difficulty playing softball. Despite conservative treatment for a year, her symptoms did not improve. Physical examination revealed decreased patellar tendon reflexes and numbness and pain from the front of the thigh to the lower leg without muscle weakness. Imaging showed L4 isthmic spondylolisthesis with Meyerding classification grade 2 anterior slip and L5 spondylolysis with pseudarthrosis. We diagnosed L4 radiculopathy caused by L4/5 foraminal stenosis and L4 isthmic spondylolisthesis with L5 spondylolysis. She underwent surgery combining the TLIF of L4/5 and the SFR technique of L5 using dual-headed pedicle screws that can fix two types of rods with L5 pedicle screws. Three months after surgery, fusion between L4/5 and fusion of the L5 pars cleft were confirmed. She resumed sports, and one year postoperatively, she was able to participate in softball games. Two years postoperatively, she could bat, run, and play defense without adjacent segmental disease. Two-segment TLIF increases adjacent segmental disease more than single-segment TLIF. Because the L5 spondylolysis had not slipped, we chose the SFR technique to preserve mobility at L5/S1. The dual-headed pedicle screw fastens two-type rods at the head of the pedicle screw, making it a suitable design for this procedure.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Many studies have been conducted to compare traditional trajectory (TT) and cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws; however, how screw parameters affect the biomechanical properties of TT and CBT screws, and so their efficacy remains to be investigated.
METHODS: A finite element model was used to simulate screws with different trajectories, diameters, and lengths. Responses for implant and tissues at the adjacent and fixed segments were used as the comparison indices. The contact lengths and spanning areas of the inserted screws were defined and compared across the varieties.
RESULTS: The trajectory and diameter had a greater impact on the responses from the implant and tissues than the length. The CBT has shorter length than the TT; however, the contact length and supporting area of the CBT within the cortical bone were 19.6%. and 14.5% higher than those of the TT, respectively. Overall, the TT and CBT were equally effective at stabilizing the instrumented segment, except for bending and rotation. The CBT experienced less adjacent segment compensations than the TT. With the same diameter and length, the TT was considerably less stressed than the CBT, especially for flexion and extension.
CONCLUSIONS: The CBT may provide less stress at adjacent segments compared with the TT. The CBT may provide more stiffer in osteoporotic segments than the TT due to greater contact with cortical bone and a wider supporting base between the paired screws. However, both entry point and insertion trajectory of the CBT should be carefully executed to avoid vertebral breach and ensure a stable cone-screw purchase.

OBJECTIVE: Anterior and posterior decompressions for cervical myelopathy and radiculopathy may lead to clinical improvements. However, patients with kyphotic cervical alignment have sometimes shown poor clinical outcomes with posterior decompression. There is a lack on report of mechanical analysis of the decompression procedures for kyphotic cervical alignment.
METHODS: This study employed a three-dimensional finite element (FE) model of the cervical spine (C2-C7) with the pre-operative kyphotic alignment (Pre-OK) model and compared the biomechanical parameters (range of motion (ROM), annular stresses, nucleus stresses, and facet contact forces) for four decompression procedures at two levels (C3-C5); laminectomy (LN), laminoplasty (LP), posterior decompression with fusion (PDF), and anterior decompression with fusion (ADF). Pure moment with compressive follower load was applied to these models.
RESULTS: PDF and ADF models\' global ROM were 40% at C2-C7 less than the Pre-OK, LN, and LP models. The annular and nucleus stresses decreased more than 10% at the surgery levels for ADF, and PDF, compared to the Pre-OK, LN, and LP models. However, the annular stresses at the adjacent cranial level (C2-C3) of ADF were 20% higher. The nucleus stresses of the caudal adjacent level (C5-C6) of PDF were 20% higher, compared to other models. The PDF and ADF models showed a less than 70% decrease in the facet forces at the surgery levels, compared to the Pre-OK, LN, and LP models.
CONCLUSIONS: The study concluded that posterior decompression, such as LN or LP, increases ROM, disc stress, and facet force and thus can lead to instability. Although there is the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD), PDF and ADF can stabilize the cervical spine even for kyphotic alignments.

To evaluate the vertebral bone mineral density and the value of stand-alone oblique lumbar interbody fusion (SA OLIF) for the management of single-level adjacent segment disease (ASD) and primary lumbar degenerative diseases.
Seventy-eight patients undergoing single-level SA OLIF was divided into index surgery group (n = 36) or revision surgery group (n = 42) at single center. The vertebral body Hounsfield units (HU) value was measured to assess bone mineral density of operated level by the preoperative CT. The following data were retrospectively collected and compared between the two groups: demographic, surgical data, clinical results, and complications.
No differences were found between the two groups in surgical data. The fusion segment HU values in the revision group were significantly higher than that in the index group (147.4 ± 35.3 vs 129.2 ± 38.4 p = .033). There were significant differences while comparing fusion segment HU values to L1-L4 horizontal plane (147.4 ± 35.3 vs 126.1 ± 28.4, p = .000) and L1 (147.4 ± 35.3 vs 126.8 ± 26.2, p = .000) in revision group, meanwhile, no statistically significant difference was observed in index group (p > .05). The cage subsidence was observed in the revision group (n = 2) and index group (n = 9) (p = .045). The patients with cage subsidence had significantly lower vertebral HU values.
SA OLIF is valid alternative to the traditional posterior approach in the management of ASD with good clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up. Increased HU values of fusion segment may play a role in the management of ASD by SA OLIF.

OBJECTIVE: Considering sagittal balance is particularly important in ASD patients because they frequently show hypolordotic prior fusion. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for aggravation of sagittal imbalance after posterior lumbar fusion in ASD patients.
METHODS: Fifty-nine patients who underwent revision posterior surgery for ASD between 2014 and 2018 were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to postoperative sagittal balance status determined by the pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) value, based on the age-adjusted Schwab classification (group A: ideal correction, N = 20; group B: undercorrection, N = 39). Several radiographic parameters were measured in plain radiographs. Clinical results were analysed using the visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and EuroQol 5-domain.
RESULTS: Better preoperative PI-LL (p = 0.001), slippage of the vertebral body (p = 0.022), higher disc height (p = 0.048), and absence of L4-5-S1 fusion (p = 0.041) in the index surgery were significantly correlated with better postoperative sagittal balance in multivariate analysis. The PI-LL improved postoperatively from 19.4 to 12.5 in group A (p = 0.019) and remained unchanged (from 38.6 to 38.6, p = 1.000) in group B. Although clinical outcomes improved postoperatively in both groups, no inter-group differences were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative sagittal imbalance, rigid affected segments, and previously fused lower lumbar segment (L4-5-S1) are independent risk factors for aggravation of sagittal imbalance in ASD patients. Surgeons should strive to restore sagittal balance after ASD surgery under the above-mentioned conditions.

UNASSIGNED: To report the first case of hyperacute onset of adjacent segmental disease (ASD) with dorsally migrated herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) causing cauda equina syndrome.
UNASSIGNED: A 55-year-old female complained of lower back pain with radiating pain in both lower extremities that had not responded to conservative treatment over the previous six months. Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings revealed degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis at L3-4, L4-5, and a slight bulging disc at L2-3. The patient underwent decompressive total laminectomy and posterior fusion at L3-4 and L4-5. The stenotic symptoms improved significantly after surgery, and she was then discharged on postoperative day 7.
UNASSIGNED: However, the patient visited the emergency department four days after discharge (postoperative day 11) complaining of sudden onset of bilateral lower extremity weakness and voiding and defecation difficulties. The follow-up MRI showed dorsally migrated huge HNP and a detached posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL) at L2-3, which was diagnosed as hyperacute onset of ASD causing cauda equina syndrome. The patient underwent an emergency second operation consisting of partial laminectomy at L2-3 with removal of the dorsally migrated huge HNP. After the second operation, the symptoms of cauda equina syndrome improved. One year after the second operation, the patient is doing well without recurrence of symptoms.
UNASSIGNED: Our case showed that hyperacute onset of ASD with dorsally migrated huge HNP can cause cauda equina syndrome, even within 2 weeks after lumbar fusion surgery. Therefore, a high index of suspicion, timely diagnosis, and surgical treatment are needed to avoid the catastrophic neurologic complications in similar extremely rare cases.

Retrospective study.
Associations among risk factors related to adjacent segmental disease (ASD) remain unclear. We evaluated the risk factors and segmental lordosis ratio to prevent ASD developing after lumbar spinal fusion.
Risk factors related to ASD development are age, sex, obesity, pre-existing degeneration, number of fusion segments, and decreased postoperative lumbar lordosis (LL). However, the associations among these factors are still unclear and should be clearly identified.
We retrospectively reviewed data on 274 patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion of three segments or below for lumbar degenerative disease from January 2010 to December 2012, with over 5 years of follow-up. Patients with preoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA) >5 cm were excluded due to sagittal imbalance. A total of 37 patients with ASD and 40 control patients (CTRL) were randomly selected in a similar distribution of matching variables: age, sex, and preoperative degenerative changes. Sex, age, number of fusion segments, radiologic measurements, L4-5-S1/L1-S1 LL ratio, and spinopelvic parameters (pelvic incidence [PI], pelvic tilt [PT], sacral slope [SS], and SVA) were analyzed. Logistic regression was used to analyze the correlation between PI-LL mismatch and L4-5-S1 segmental lordosis rate.
No significant difference was found between ASDs and CTRL groups regarding age, sex, number of fusion segments, fusion method, and preoperative and postoperative spinopelvic parameters (PI, SS, PT, and LL). However, regarding the L4-5-S1/L1-S1 lordosis ratio, 50% (p=0.045), 60% (p=0.031), 70% (p=0.042), 80% (p=0.023), and 90% (p=0.023) were statistically significant; <20% (p=0.478), 30% (p=0.223), and 40% (p=0.089) were not statistically significant. In the postoperative PI-LL <10 group, ASD occurred less frequently than in the PI-LL >10 group, and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.048).
Patients with a postoperative L4-5-S1/L1-S1 lordosis ratio >50% had less occurrence of ASD. Correcting LL according to PI and physiologic segmental lordosis ratio is important in preventing ASD.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) as revision surgeries for symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in cases with previous ACDF.
METHODS: Between 2010 and 2014, 41 patients with previous cervical fusion surgery underwent ACDF or CTDR for symptomatic ASD. Twenty-two patients in the ACDF group underwent 26 ACDFs, and 19 patients in the CTDR group underwent 25 arthroplasties for symptomatic ASD. Clinical outcomes were assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) for arm pain, the neck disability index (NDI) and Odom\'s criteria. Radiological evaluations were performed preoperatively and postoperatively to measure changes in the range of motion (ROM) of the cervical spine and adjacent segments and arthroplasty level. The radiological change of ASD was assessed in radiographs.
RESULTS: Clinical outcomes as assessed with VAS for arm pain and Odom\'s criteria were significantly improved in both groups. The CTDR group showed better NDI improvement after surgery (P<0.05). The mean C2-7 ROM of the CTDR group revealed faster recovery than did that of the ACDF group and the preoperative values were recovered at the last follow-up visit. There was a significant difference in the ROM of the inferior adjacent segment between the ACDF and CTDR groups (P<0.05). The ACDF group had a higher incidence of radiological changes in the adjacent segment compared with the CTDR group (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year clinical results of CTDR for symptomatic ASD are safe and are comparable to the outcomes of ACDF in terms of arm pain relief and functional recovery. The CTDR group showed better NDI improvement, faster C2-7 ROM recovery, less of an increase in ROM in the inferior adjacent segment, and a lower incidence of adjacent segment degeneration than did the ACDF group.

BACKGROUND: The favorable outcome of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) is widely recognized, but some patients require reoperation because of complications, such as pseudoarthrosis, persistent pain, infection, and progressive degenerative changes. Among these changes, adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and same segmental disease (SSD) are common reasons for reoperation. However, the relative risks of the various factors and their interactions are unclear.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the longitudinal reoperation rate after surgery for DS and to assess the incidence and independent risk factors for ASD and SSD.
METHODS: This study is a retrospective consecutive case series of patients with DS who were surgically treated.
METHODS: We assessed 163 consecutive patients who were surgically treated for DS between 2003 and 2008. Individual patients were followed for at least 5 years after the initial surgery.
METHODS: The primary end point was any type of second lumbar surgery. Radiographic measurements and demographic data were reviewed. We compared patients who underwent reoperation with those who did not. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the relative risk of ASD and SSD in patients surgically treated for DS.
METHODS: Radiographic measurements and demographic data were reviewed. We identified the incidence and risk factors for reoperation, and we performed univariate and multivariate analyses to determine the independent risk factors for revision surgery for SSD and for ASD as the two distinct reasons for the reoperation. Age, gender, etiology, body mass index (BMI), and other radiographic data were analyzed to determine the risk factors for developing SSD and ASD.
RESULTS: The average patient age was 65.8 (50-81 years; 73 women and 90 men; mean follow-up, 5.9±1.6 years). Eighty-nine patients had posterior lumbar interbody fusion and 74 had laminotomies. Twenty-two patients had L3-L4 involvement and 141 had L4-L5 involvement. The cumulative reoperation rate was 6.1% at 1 year, 8.5% at 2 years, 15.2% at 3 years, 17.7% at 5 years, and 23.3% (38/163 patients) at the final follow-up. A significantly higher reoperation rate was observed for patients undergoing laminotomy than for patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (33.8% vs. 14.4%, p=.01). Eighteen patients (11.0%) had SSD, and 13 patients (8.9%) developed ASD. Higher BMI (obesity) and greater disc height (greater than 10 mm) predicted the occurrence of SSD in the multivariate model (BMI=odds ratio 4.11 [95% confidence interval 1.29-13.11], p=.016; disc height=3.18 [1.03-9.82], p=.044), and gender (male) and facet degeneration (Fujiwara grade greater than 3) predicted the development of ASD in the multivariate model (gender=4.74 [1.09-20.45], p=.037; facet degeneration=6.31 [1.09-36.52], p=.039).
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of reoperation in patients surgically treated for DS was 23.2% at a mean time of 5.9 years. A significantly higher incidence of reoperation was observed in patients treated with decompression alone compared with those treated with decompression and fusion. Body mass index and disc height were identified as independent risk factors for SSD, whereas male gender and facet degeneration were identified as independent risk factors for ASD. The results of this comprehensive review will guide spine surgeons in their preoperative planning and in the surgical management of patients with DS, thereby reducing the reoperation rate.