Spinal Disorders: Fundamentals of Diagnosis and Treatment Part 77 ppsx

Operation times are longer and complication rates are higher (Table 7)thanwith the other two approaches. Kwon and Albert [44] point out that solid fusion does not always correlate with clinical success in other degenerative disorders of the spine. While comparative objective radiographic measurements of the spine after PLIF vs. PLF for lytic spondylolisthesis in adults show better results for PLIF, clinical outcomes were not reported to be markedly different [47, 55, 105]. It is therefore valid to at least critically question whether the benefits engendered by performing a combined approach stand in correlation to the longer, techni- cally more demanding and, from a hardware standpoint, usually more expensive procedure with a higher risk for complications. Fusion to L4 Reduction is facilitated by instrumenting to L4 In children with severe developmental spondylolisthesis at L5/S1 (Meyerding Grades III–V), reduction can be extremely tedious and may be facilitated by instrumentationtoL4( Case Study 2, Fig. 7). This technique allows to distract between L4 and S1, which facilitates the reduction. In selected cases, the L4 screws can be removed at the end of the operation or alternatively 12 weeks later, which leaves the motion segment L4/5 intact [87]. However, the lateral process of L5isoftendysplasticinchildrenanddoesnotallowforareliablefusion.There- fore a fusion to L4 is recommended. This is particularly valid if no interbody fusion is added. In adults the L4/5 disc is often degenerated and requires inclusion in the fusion In adults with marked slips of L5/S1, the adjacent L4/5 segment frequently exhibits significant degenerative changes. In these cases, a fusion of L4 to S1 is indicated because the L4/5 segment often rapidly decompensates after the L5/S1 fusion. Vertebrectomy To achieve good spine realignment, surgical treatment of spondyloptosis, which almost only affects L5/S1, may necessitate vertebrectomy of L5 (Gaines’ proce- dure [26]). This is a two-stage procedure, first incorporating an anterior approach with resection of the entire body of L5 back to the base of the pedicles, as well as the intervertebral discs L4/5 and L5/S1. In a second stage, the posterior approach allows realignment of the spine after L5 pedicles, facets and laminar arch have been removed bilaterally. After transpedicular instrumentation from L4 to S1 and sagittal realignment, nerve roots L5 and S1 exit the spinal canal together over a reconstructed intervertebral foramen. Gaines, who originally described this method in 1985, more recently reported on 30 patients treated with this procedure [26]. Despite the fact that Gaines had a low complication rate and good success, over two-thirds of the patients had neurapraxic injury to one Vertebrectomy for a high-grade slip is prone to complications or both L5 roots and in two this remained permanent. This procedure, which requires a large amount of surgical experience, should only be performed at spe- cifically equipped centers. Complication rates remain very high even in experi- enced hands. Sacral Dome Osteotomy The main risk of reducing high-grade spondylolisthesis and spondyloptosis is related to the stretching of the L5 nerve roots, which often results in neuropraxia. The sacral dome osteotomy helps to avoid this nerve root injury by shortening of the sacrum. This technique consists of a bilateral osteotomy of the sacral dome, which allows the reduction of the slip without distraction ( Fig. 7). The operation is carried out in a single stage. This demanding procedure should be carried out 754 Section Spinal Deformities and Malformations ab cd ef Figure 7. Reduction of high-grade spondylolisthesis with sacrum dome osteotomy a The pedicles of L4, L5 and S1 are instrumented with pedicle screws. b, c The loose posterior arc of L5 is resected and the L5 and S1 nerve root as well as the intervertebral discs are exposed. The dome of the sacrum is osteotomized with a chisel and resected. d A rod is inserted on both sides first connecting the S1 screws with the rods. L4 is then reduced to the rod with a reduction forceps. L4– S1 are slightly distracted. e L5 is pulled back and connected to the rod with a reduction for- ceps. f An interbody fusion is added to L5/S1 and a posterolateral fusion to L4–S1. Spondylolisthesis Chapter 27 755 only with neuromonitoring of the L5 nerve roots. It is important to note that neu- romonitoring is not absolutely reliable, because paresis of the nerve root can occur even hours after the surgery. It is therefore recommended to reduce the slip onlyfarenoughtoallowforagoodsagittalrealignmentandaninterbodybut- tressing by a graft or cage ( Case Study 2). Complications Typical complications encountered are neurologic injuries and non-union As with all surgical procedures, patients surgically managed for spondylolisthe- sis must receive the best outcome with low exposure to problems and complica- tions. It is therefore important to appreciate which complications can occur so as to minimize the occurrence and appreciate the psychologic impact these may have on the patient [79]. Depending on the etiology of the condition and the pro- cedure performed, complication rates differ significantly. In situ fixation for degenerative low-grade slippage in the adult will have a markedly lower risk of attaining neurologic impairment than complex reconstructive surgery of the adolescent spine in spondyloptosis. Common complications after spondylolis- thesis surgery are: neurologic injury (0.3–9.1%) [74, 79, 89, 93] persistent nerve root deficits (2–3%) [15, 38, 74, 89, 102] non-unions (0–39%) [20, 31, 38, 48, 55, 60, 67, 74, 89, 106] progressive slippage (4–11%) [28, 82, 89, 102] revision surgery (7.6%) [48, 67, 89] L5nerverootisathighrisk in high-grade spondylolis- thesis surgery The list of these potential complications indicates that surgery of (high-grade) spondylolisthesis is demanding and very careful preoperative planning is neces- sary before the procedure is performed. As with all neurologic complications, these need to be accurately assessed and diagnostic imaging should occur rap- idly. If there is obvious compression of neural structures, be it from hematoma or misplacement of spinal instrumentation, immediate revision surgery should be the consequence. More complex are the cases where there is no radiographic evidence of com- pression of neural structures. In cases of only minor deficit, an attentive yet merely observational approach may be warranted. The question whether reduc- tion was too ambitious should critically be asked. In general for any surgeon, the decision for or against revision surgery is among the most difficult to make. It is therefore prudent to involve a further, less biased surgeon to assess the patient as well as the radiographic parameters and decide for or against revision together. Adjacent segmen t instability afterinstrumentationmaybeduetoexcessive iatrogenic destabilization of the overlying facet joint and capsule, due to exces- sive thinning or complete removal of the overlying lamina or due to degenerative changes to the adjacent motion segment. While the iatrogenic destabilization of a segment certainly will lead to slippage adjacent to a stabilized segment [109], data concerning adjacent segment degeneration are inconsistent. Incidences are reported to range between less than 3% and 35%. The discussion remains open as to whether these observed degenerative changes reflect the natural history of disc disease or stand in context to the adjacent fusion [66, 83]. As Ogilvie [79] points out, both are probably a factor and therefore as many lumbar levels should be left unfused as are consistent with the goals of surgery. 756 Section Spinal Deformities and Malformations Recapitulation Epidemiology. Lumbar spondylolisthesis can be developmental or acquired. As most slippages are asymptomatic, the true incidence of the condition remains speculative. For developmental spondylo- listhesis, rates of around 3% in the general popula- tion have been estimated, but depending on the ethnic group, the incidence may be significantly higher. Among the acquired slippages, the degen- erative type is the most frequent one. Pathogenesis. Spondylolysis, which is a defect of the pars interarticularis, is the main cause of devel- opmental spondylolisthesis and results from a stress fracture. This causes failure of the posterior stabilizing elements and the disc is confronted with excessive shear. The dissociation of the anterior and posterior column therefore ultimately results in slippage, since the disc cannot withstand the shear forces. Acquired spondylolisthesis mostly oc- curs on the basis of degenerative lumbar disease. Further causes may be iatrogenic destabilization of a motion segment, trauma, tumors, and rare syn- dromes or systemic bone disease. Classification. Only those classifications are of true value that are based on anatomy or distinguish be- tween developmental and acquired forms of the deformity. The two systems which are clinically rele- vant are those of Wiltse/Rothmann and Marchetti/ Bartolozzi. The Marchetti classification is self-ex- planatory and, as it avoids complex terminology, easier to understand. Clinical presentation. Patients seeking medical at- tention do so with a variety of symptoms. Back and/or leg pain may range from merely harassing to severe. Depending on the degree of slippage and onset, neurologic symptoms mayoccur.Inrare cases, spinal canal compromise may be so severe that patients present with a cauda equina syndrome. Adolescents with symptomatic high-grade spondy- lolisthesis may develop a sciatic crisis known as the Phalen-Dixon sign. Tight hamstrings and posture ab- normalities accompany the presentation in the ado- lescent patient. In the adult patient, mechanical low- back pain (worse on motion, better on rest) and radi- culopathy are the prevailing symptoms. Physical ex- amination may show hyperlordosis of the lumbar spine, and in high-grade slippages a step-off be- tween spinous processes.Patientsshouldbeas- sessed for sensory or motor deficits of nerve roots. Diagnostic work-up. Standard anteroposterior and lateral radiographs are the mainstay for the initial as- sessment. Oblique X-rays may visualize a pars defect not already visible on a lateral view. Slippage is quan- tified by either using the method as described by Me- yerding (Grade I–V) or of Taillard (%). Assessment of the sagittal deformity (lumbosacral kyphosis) is cru- cial in high-grade spondylolisthesis. A large slip angle in conjunction with a rounded sacrum increases the risk of slip progression in children. In case of neuro- logic deficit or if surgery is planned, a CT scan or MRI should always be performed. Non-operative treatment. Treatment decision will ultimately be based on the age of the patient, symptoms, etiology as well as the degree of slip- page. General objectives of treatment are to re- lieve pain, reverse neurologic deficit and, in cases of severe slippage, to realign the spine. The vast ma- jority of spondylolisthesis can be treated non-oper- atively. Acute pain should be controlled with initial rest, anti-inflammatory and/or pain-modulating medication as well as administration of a muscle re- laxant. This is followed by a therapeutic exercise program with paraspinal and abdominal muscle strengthening. If pain does not sufficiently subside, the use of a brace or orthoses may be beneficial. Cast treatment may result in a healing of an acute spondylolysis in selected cases. Operative treatment. Surgery is justified in cases of persistent or recurrent back and/or radicular pain, neurologic deficit/neurogenic claudication as well as bladder and/or bowel syndromes. Aim of all sur- gical techniques is to decompress neural struc- tures, prevent progression and achieve stability with subsequent fusion. Generally there are three methods to achieve this goal, i.e. uninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF), and instrumented pos- terolateral fusion with or without anterior or poste- rior interbody fusion (ALIF/PLIF). Due to technical innovations and improvement in implants, there is an increasing trend to manage spondylolisthesis by combined approaches. The surgical approach will depend on familiarity with the approach, resources andinfrastructureaswellasback-upexpertisein case of complications. Particularly the manage- ment of high-grade spondylolisthesis is a surgical challenge and technically demanding. In children with high-grade spondylolisthesis,fusiontoL4is often required. Reduction of high-grade spondylo- Spondylolisthesis Chapter 27 757 listhesis is still a matter of debate because of the high complication rates associated with these pro- cedures. Particularly, the L5 nerve root is at risk. The primary goal in adult low-grade spondylolisthesis is not to reduce the slip but this may be necessary in cases with foraminal stenosis. In the latter indica- tion, solid fusion and neural decompression are more important. In cases where reduction and/or distraction of the slipped vertebra was performed, anterior buttressing by an interbody fusion is nec- essary. Frequent complications encountered are non-union and neural compromise. Key Articles Boxall DW, Bradford DS, Winter RB, Moe JH (1979) Management of severe spondylolis- thesis (grade III and IV) in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 61:479 – 495 Patients with an L5/S1 spondylolisthesis of 50% or greater were reviewed. Four had been treated non-operatively; 11, by spondylodesis; 18, by decompression and spondylodesis; and 10, by reduction and spondylodesis. The angle of slippage was found to be as impor- tant a measurement as the percentage of slippage in measuring instability and progres- sion. Spondylodesis alone, even in the presence of minor neural deficits, tight ham- strings, or both, gave relief of pain and resolution of neural deficits and tight hamstrings. The study suggests that management by postoperative extension casts may achieve a sig- nificant reduction in percentage and in angle of slippage. Progression of the spondylolis- thesis may occur following a solid spondylodesis. Bradford DS, Boachie-Adjei O (1990) Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by anterior and posterior reduction and stabilisation. A long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 72:1060 – 1066 Unselected patients (n=22) who had severe spondylolisthesis were treated by a first-stage posterior decompression (Gill procedure) and a posterolateral arthrodesis, followed by haloskeletal traction, and then by a second-stage anterior interbody arthrodesis, followed by immobilization in a cast. At an average 5-year follow-up the corrected slip angle remained much the same. A pseudarthrosis developed in four patients, all of whom had a reoperation. The neurologic deficitsthat had been present in ten patients preoperatively had completely resolved in all but one at follow-up. Alignment in the sagittal plane was restored in most patients, and the back pain and radicular symptoms were resolved in all patients but one. Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Bullis D, Betz RR, Baldus C, Schoenecker PL (1992)Resultsofin situ fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord 5:433 – 442 Patients treated with in situ bilateral transverse process fusions utilizing autogenous iliac bone graft yet without decompression or instrumentation are assessed. A surprisingly low fusion rate was found; yet despite this overall clinical improvement was noted in >80% of patients with preoperative symptoms of back pain, leg pain, or hamstring tight- ness. Boos N, Marchesi D, Zuber K, Aebi M (1993) Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by reduction and pedicular fixation. A 4–6-year follow-up study. Spine 18:1655 – 1661 This paper compares the surgical treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by posterolateral fusion with and without interbody fusion. The majority of patients with single postero- lateral fusion demonstrated loss of reduction, non-union and implant failure. The authors suggest that pedicular fixation systems only allow permanent reduction and sta- bilization of high-grade spondylolisthesis in conjunction with a combined interbody and posterolateral fusion. Moller H, Hedlund R (2000) Instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomized study: part 2.Spine25:1716 – 1721 This prospective randomized study assesses whether posterolateral fusion in patients with adult isthmic spondylolisthesis results in an improved outcome compared with an exercise program. Pain and functional disability were quantified before treatment and at 1- and 2-year follow-up assessments by visual analog scales (VAS). The data shows that surgical management of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis improves function and relieves pain more efficiently than an exercise program. The results suggest that the use of supple- 758 Section Spinal Deformities and Malformations mentary transpedicular instrumentation does not add to the fusion rate or improve clini- cal outcome. Molinari RW, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Baldus C (2002)Anteriorcolumnsupportinsur- gery for high-g rade, isthmic spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Rel Res 394:109 – 120 This study compares the outcome of two techniques of surgical management of high- grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. While reduction and circumferential fusion including anterior structural support had no pseudarthrosis, the incidence of non-union in patients treated with in-situ fusion or decompression and reduction with sole posterior instrumentation was 39%. Outcomes regarding pain after treatment, function, and satis- faction were high in those patients who achieved solid fusion regardless of the method. Gaines RW (2005)L5 vertebrectomy for the surgical treatment of spondyloptosis. Thirty cases in 25 years. Spine 30:66 – 70 Thirty cases of vertebrectomy are reviewed over a significant time span. Complication review showed that 23 patients had some temporary clinical deficit in the L5 root for 6 weeks up to 3 years after reconstruction. All but two recovered fully. One patient had retrograde ejaculation, and two patients needed revision surgery for screw breakage due to non-union. No patient had junctional problems and overall patients were clinically sat- isfied with the procedure. McAfee PC, DeVine JG, Chaput CD, Prybis BG, Fedder IL, Cunningham BW, Farrell DJ, Hess SJ, Vigna FE (2005) The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylolisthesis: analysis of 120 cases. Spine 30:60 – 5 The authors review 120 cases of patients with spondylolisthesis of varying etiologies sur- gically managed by 360° instrumentation in respect to their radiographic outcome. Also, complications are assessed. Seven incidental durotomies and three infections were recorded. There was an excellent rate of fusion at 98% and the authors conclude that an important part of the success was regaining neuroforaminal height due to distraction and the interbody spacer. Schlenzka D, Remes V, Helenius I, Lamberg T, Tervahartiala P, Yrjonen T, Tallroth K, Osterman K, Seitsalo S, Poussa M (2006)Directrepairfortreatmentofsymptomatic spondylolysis and low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in young patients: no benefit in comparison to segmental fusion after a mean follow-up of 14.8 years. Eur Spine J 15:1437 – 47 Clinical, radiographic and MRI assessment of the long-term clinical, functional, and radiographic outcome of direct repair of spondylolysis using cerclage wire fixation according to Scott in young patients with symptomatic spondylolysis or low-grade isth- mic spondylolisthesis (n=25) as compared to the outcome after uninstrumented pos- terolateral in situ fusion (n=23). In conclusion, the results of direct repair of the spon- dylolysis according to Scott were very satisfactory in 76%. After direct repair, the Oswe- stry Disability Index (ODI) deteriorated with time leading to a clinically moderate but statistically significant difference in favor of segmental fusion. Lumbar spine mobility was decreased after direct repair. Secondary segmental instability above the spinal fusion was not detected. The procedure does not seem to be capable of preventing the olisthetic disc from degeneration. The theoretical benefits of direct repair could not be proven. References 1. Adams MA, Hutton WC (1983) The mechanical function of the lumbar apophyseal joints. Spine 8:327–330 2. Andersson GBJ (1983) The biomechanics of the posterior elements of the lumbar spine. Spine 8:326–331 3. Barrick WT, Schoffermann JA, Reynolds JB, et al. (2000) Anterior lumbar fusion improves discogenic pain at levels of prior posterolateral fusion. Spine 25:853–857 4. Beutler WJ, Fredrickson BE, Nurtland A et al. (2003) The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: 45 year follow-up evaluation. Spine 28:1027–1035 5. Balderston RA, Vaccaro AR (1989) Surgical treatment of adult degenerative spondylolisthe- sis. In: Wiesel SW, Weinstein JN, Herkowitz H, Dvorak J, Bell G (eds) The lumbar spine, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 700–710 Spondylolisthesis Chapter 27 759 6. Beckers L (1986) Buck’s operation for treatment of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Acta Orthop Belg 52:819–23 7. Belfi LM, Ortiz AO, Katz DS (2006) Computed tomography evaluation of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in asymptomatic patients. Spine 31:907–E910 8. Bjarke CF, Stender HE, Laurson M, et al. (2002) Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion: randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine 27:1269–1277 9. Blackburne JS, Velikas EP (1977) Spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 59:490–494 10. Boos N, Marchesi D, Aebi M (1991) Treatment of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis with Coutrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a preliminary report. J Spinal Disord 4.472–479 11. Boos N, Marchesi D, Zuber K, Aebi M (1993) Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by reduction and pedicular fixation. A 4–6-year follow-up study. Spine 18:1655–1661 12. Boxall DW, Bradford DS, Winter RB, Moe JH (1979) Management of severe spondylolisthe- sis (grade III and IV) in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 61:479–495 13. Bradford DS, Boachie-Adjei O (1990) Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by anterior and posterior reduction and stabilisation. A long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 72:1060–1066 14. Buck JE (1970) Direct repair of the defect in spondylolisthesis. Preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg 52:432–7 15. Chen L, Tang T, Yang H (2003) Complications associated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using Bagby and Kuslich method for treatment of spondylolisthesis. Chin Med J (Engl) 116:99–103 16. Crawford AH (2001) Neurofibromatosis. In: Weinstein SL (ed) The pediatric spine. Princi- ples and practice, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia 17. Curylo LJ, Edwards C, DeWald RL (2002) Radiographic markers in spondyloptosis: implica- tions for spondylolisthesis progression. Spine 27:1021–2025 18. Cyron BM, Hitton WC, Troup JDG (1976) Spondylolytic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 58:462–466 19. Deguchi M, Rapoff AJ, Zdeblick TA (1999) Biomechanical comparison of spondylolysis fixa- tion techniques. Spine 24:328–33 20. DeWald CJ, Vartabedian JE, Rodts MF, Hammerberg KW (2005) Evaluation and manage- ment of high-grade spondylolisthesis in adults. Spine 30:S49–59 21. Dick WT, Schnebel B (1988) Severe spondylolisthesis. Reduction and internal fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 232:70– 9 22. Duval-Beaupere G, Boisaubert B, Hecquet J, et al. Sagittal profile of normal spine changes in spondylolisthesis. In: Harms J, Sturz H (eds) Severe spondylolisthesis. Steinkopff-Verlag, Darmstadt, pp 21–32 23. Farfan HF (1980) The pathological anatomy of degenerative spondylolisthesis: a cadaver study. Spine 5:412–418 24. Fredrickson BE, Baker D, McHolick WJ, Yuan HA, Lubicky JP (1984) The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 66:699–707 25. Friberg O (1989) Functional radiography of the lumbar spine. Ann Med 21:341–346 26. Gaines RW (2005) L5 vertebrectomy for the surgical treatment of spondyloptosis. Thirty cases in 25 years. Spine 30:S66–S70 27. Grobler LJ, Wiltse LL (1991) Classification, non-operative, and operative treatment of spon- dylolisthesis. In: Frymoyer JW, Ducker TB, Hadler NM, Kostuik JP, Weinstein JN, White- cloud TS (eds) The adult spine, vol. 2. Raven Press, New York, pp 1655–1704 28. Grzegorzewski A, Kumar SJ (2000) In situ posterolateral spine arthrodesis for grades III, IV and V spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop 20:506–511 29. Hambly M, Lee CK, Gutteling E, et al. (1989) Tension band wiring-bone grafting for spondy- lolysis and spondylolisthesis: a clinical and biomechanical study. Spine 14:455–460 30. Hammerberg KW (2005) New concepts on the pathogenesis and classification of spondylo- listhesis. Spine 30:S4–S11 31. Hanley EN Jr, Levy JA (1989) Surgical treatment of isthmic lumbosacral spondylolisthesis: analysis of variables influencing results. Spine 14:48–50 32. Hanscom DA, Bloom BA (1988) The spine in osteogenesis imperfecta. Orthop Clin North Am 192:449–454 33. Harris IE, Weinstein SL (1987) Long-term follow-up of patients with grade III and IV spondy- lolisthesis: treatment with and without posterior fusion. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 69: 960–969 34. Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Kanayama M, et al. (2002) Clinical results of single level poste- rior lumbar interbody fusion using Brantigan I/F carbon cage filled with a mixture of local morselized bone and bioactive ceramic granules. Spine 27:258–262 35. Hefti F, Seelig W, Morscher E (1992) Repair of lumbar spondylolysis with a hook screw. Int Orthop 16:81–85 36. Hensinger RN (1989) Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 71:1098–1107 760 Section Spinal Deformities and Malformations 37. Herkowitz HN (1995) Spine update: degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine 20: 1084–1090 38. Hu SS, Bradford DS, Transfeldt EE, et al. (1996) Reduction of high-grade spondylolisthesis using Edwards instrumentation. Spine 21:367–371 39. Jackson RP, Phipps T, Hales C, et al. (2003) Pelvic lordosis and alignment in spondylolisthe- sis. Spine 28:151–160 40. Jackson DW, Wiltse LL, Cirincione RJ (1976) Spondylolisthesis in the female gymnast. Clin Orthop 117:68–73 41. Johnsson R, Stromqvist B, Axelsson P, et al. (1992) Influence of spinal immobilization on consolidation of posterolateral lumbosacral fusion: a roentgen stereophotogrammetric and radiographic analysis. Spine 17:16–21 42. Kettelkamp DB, Wright GD (1971) Spondylolysis in the Alaskan Eskimo. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 53:563–566 43. Kim NH, Lee JW (1999) Anterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion with trans- pedicular fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. A comparison of clinical results. Spine 24.812–816 44. Kwon BK, Albert TJ (2005) Adult low-grade acquired spondylitic spondylolisthesis. Evalua- tion and management. Spine 30:S35–S41 45. Lafond G (1962) Surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop 22:175–179 46. Lamberg TS, Remes VM, Helenius IJ, Schlenzka DK, Yrjonen TA, Osterman KE, Tervaharti- ala PO, Seitsalo SK, Poussa MS (2005) Long-term clinical, functional and radiological out- come 21 years after posterior or posterolateral fusion in childhood and adolescence isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 14:639–44 47. La Rosa G, Conti A, Cacciola F, et al. (2003) Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolis- thesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion? J Neurosurg 99:143–150 48. Lauber S, Schulte TL, Lilienquist U, Halm H, Hackenberg L (2006) Clinical and radiologic 2–4-year results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Spine 31:1693–8 49. Laurent LE, Einola S (1961) Spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. Acta Orthop Scand 31:45–64 50. Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Bullis D, et al. (1992) Results of in situ fusion for isthmic spondylo- listhesis. J Spinal Disord 5.433–442 51. Lonstein JE (1999) Spondylolisthesis in children: cause, natural history, and management. Spine 24:2640–2652 52. Lubicky JP (1997) The spine in osteogenesis imperfecta. In: Bridwell KH, DeWald RL (eds) The textbook of spinal surgery, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, p 321 53. Lubicky JP (2005) Unusual spondylolisthesis. Spine 30:S82–S87 54. Macnab I (1950) Spondylolisthesis with an intact neural arch: the so called pseudospondy- lolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 32:325 55. Madan S, Boeree NR (2002) Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus postero- lateral fusion for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 27:1536–1542 56. Marchettei PG, Bartolozzi P (1997) Spondylolisthesis: classification of spondylolisthesis as a guideline for treatment. In: The textbook of spinal surgery, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 1211–1254 57. Matsunaga S, Ijiri K, Hayashi K (2000) Nonsurgically managed patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a 10- to 18-year follow-up study. J Neurosurg 93:194–198 58. Matsunaga S, Sakou T,Morizono Y, et al. (1990) Natural history of degenerative spondylolis- thesis: pathogenesis and natural course of the slippage. Spine 15:1204– 1210 59. McAfee PC, Yuan HA (1982) Computed tomography in spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Rel Res 166:62–71 60. McAfee PC, DeVine JG, Chaput CD, Prybis BG, Fedder IL, Cunningham BW, Farrell DJ, Hess SJ, Vigna FE (2005) The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylo- listhesis: analysis of 120 cases. Spine 30:S60–5 61. McGregor AH, Anderton L, Gedroye WM, et al. (2002) The use of interventional open MRI to assess the kinematics of the lumbar spine in patients with spondylolisthesis. Spine 27: 1582–1586 62. McGuire RA, Amundson GM (1993) The use of primary internal fixation in spondylolisthe- sis. Spine 18:1662–1672 63. McNally DS, Adams MA (1992) Internal intervertebral disc mechanics as revealed by stress profilometry. Spine 17:66–73 64. McNally DS, Shackleford IM, Goodship AE, et al. (1996) In vivo stress measurement can predict pain on discography. Spine 21:2580–2587 65. Meyerding HW (1932) Spondylolisthesis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 54:371–380 66. Miyakoshi N, Abe E, Shimada Y, et al. (2000) Outcome of one-level posterior lumbar inter- body fusion for spondylolisthesis and postoperative intervertebral disc degeneration adja- cent to the fusion. Spine 25:1837–1842 Spondylolisthesis Chapter 27 761 67. Molinari RW, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Baldus C (2002) Anterior column support in surgery for high-grade, isthmic spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Rel Res 394:109–120 68. Moller H, Hedlund R (2000) Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine 25:1711– 1715 69. Moller H, Hedlund R (2000) Instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomized study: part 2. Spine 25:1716–1721 70. Moller H, Sundin A, Hedlund R (2000) Symptoms, signs, and functional disability in adult spondylolisthesis. Spine 25:683–689 71. Montgomery DM, Fischgrund JS (1994) Passive reduction of spondylolisthesis on the oper- atingroomtable:aprospectivestudy.JSpinalDisord7:167–172 72. Morita T, Ikata T, Katoh S, Mirake R (1995) Lumbar spondylolysis in children and adoles- cents. J Bone Joint Surg 77:620–625 73. Morscher E, Gerber B, et al. (1984) Surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis by bone grafting and direct stabilization of spondylolysis by means of a hook screw. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 103:175–178 74. Muschik M, Zippel H, Perka C (1997) Surgical management of severe spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents: anterior fusion in situ versus anterior spondylodesis with poste- rior transpedicular instrumentation and reduction. Spine 22:2036–2042 75. Nachemson AL, Schultz AB, Berkson MH (1979) Mechanical properties of human lumbar spine motion segments. Spine 4:1–8 76. Nematbakhsh A, Crawford AH (2004) Non-adjacent spondylolisthesis in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. J Pediatr Orthop (B) 13:336–339 77. Neuwirth M (1981) Dysplastic and isthmic spondylolisthesis. Bull Hosp Joint Dis Orthop Int 41:94–104 78. Newman PH (1963) The etiology of spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 45(Br):39–43 79. Ogilvie JW (2005) Complications in spondylolisthesis surgery. Spine 30:97–101 80. Osterman K, Lindholm TS, Laurent LE (1976) Late results of removal of the loose posterior element (Gill’s operation) in the treatment of lytic lumbar spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 117:121–8 81. Pennell RG, Maurer AH, Bonakdarpour A (1985) Stress injuries of the pars interarticularis: a radiological classification and indications for scintigraphy. Am J Rad 145:763–766 82. Pizzutillo PD, Mirenda W, MacEwan GD (1986) Posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis in adolescence. J Pediatr Orthop 6:311–316 83. Rahm M, Hall B (1996) Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instru- mentation: a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord 9:392–400 84. Ranson CA, Kerslake RW, Burnett AF, Batt ME, Abdi S (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic professional fast bowlers in cricket. J Bone Joint Surg 87:1111–1116 85. Rosenberg NJ (1975) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: predisposing factors. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 57:467 –474 86. Rowe GG, Roche MB (1953) The etiology of separate neural arch. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 35:102–110 87. Ruf M, Melcher R, Merk H, Harms J (2006) Anatomic reduction and monosegmental fusion for high-grade developmental spondylolisthesis L5/S1. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 144:33–9 88. Saal JA (1989) Comprehensive nonoperative care of lytic spondylolisthesis: principles and practice.In:WieselSW,WeinsteinJN,HerkowitzH,DvorakJ,BellG(eds)Thelumbarspine, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 654–669 89. Sailhan F, Gollogly S, Roussouly P (2006) The radiographic results and neurologic complica- tions of instrumented reduction and fusion of high-grade spondylolisthesis without decompression of the neural elements: a retrospective review of 44 patients. Spine 31: 161–9 90. Saraste H (1987) Long term clinical and radiological follow-up of spondylolysis and spon- dylolisthesis. J Pediatr Orthop 7:631–638 91. SchlenzkaD,RemesV,HeleniusI,LambergT,TervahartialaP,YrjonenT,TallrothK,Oster- man K, Seitsalo S, Poussa M (2006) Direct repair for treatment of symptomatic spondyloly- sis and low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in young patients: no benefit in comparison to segmental fusion after a mean follow-up of 14.8 years. Eur Spine J 15:1437–47 92. Schnee CL, Freese A, Ansell LV (1997) Outcome analysis for adults with spondylolisthesis treated with posterolateral fusion and transpedicular screw fixation. J Neurosurg 86:56–63 93. Schoenecker PL, Cole HO, Herring JA (1990) Cauda equina syndrome after in situ arthrodesis for severe spondylolisthesis at the lumbosacral junction. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 72:369–377 94. Schufflebarger HL, Geck MJ (2005) High-grade isthmic dysplastic spondylolisthesis. Mono- segmental surgical treatment. Spine 30:42– 48 95. Schwab FJ, Farcy JPC, Roye DP Jr (1997) The sagittal pelvic tilt index as a criterion in the evaluation of spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:1661–1667 96. Scott JC (1953) Spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg 35-B:169–71 97. Sengupta DK (2004) Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 35:43–56 762 Section Spinal Deformities and Malformations 98. Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2005) Degenerative spondylolisthesis. Review of current trends and controversies. Spine 6:71– 81 99. Sponseller PD, Hobbs W, Riley LH, et al. (1995) The thoracolumbar spine in Marfan’s syn- drome. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 77:867–876 100. Spruit M, Pavlov PW, Leitao J, et al. (2002) Posterior reduction and anterior lumbar inter- body fusion in symptomatic low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: short-term radio- logical and functional outcome. Eur Spine J 11:428–433 101. Stanitski CL, Stanitski DF, LaMant RL (1994) Spondylolisthesis in myelomeningocele. J Pediatr Orthop 14:586–591 102. Stanton RP, Meehan P, Lovell WW (1985) Surgical fusion in childhood spondylolisthesis. J Pediatr Orthop 5:411–415 103. Sugiura Y (1978) Tricho-rhino-phalangeal syndrome associated with Perthes disease-like bone changes and spondylolisthesis. J Hum Genet 23:23 104. Suk KS, Jeon CH, Park MS, et al. (2001) Comparison between posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw fixation and anterior interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Yonsei Med J 42:316–323 105. Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, et al. (1997) Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolis- thesis. Spine 22:210–219 106. Swan J, Hurwitz E, Malek F, van den Haak E, Cheng I, Alamin T, Carragee E (2006) Surgical treatment for unstable low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults: a prospective con- trolledstudyofposteriorinstrumentedfusioncomparedwithcombinedanterior-poste- rior fusion. Spine J 6:606–14 107. Tabrizi P, Bouchard JA (2001) Osteoporotic spondylolisthesis. Spine 26:1482 108. Taillard W (1954) Les spondylolisthesis chez enfant l’adolescent. Acta Orthop Scand 24:115–144 109. Throckmorton T, Hilibrand A, Mencio A, et al. (2003) The impact of adjacent level disc degeneration on health status outcomes following lumbar fusion. Spine 28:2546–2550 110. Troup JDG (1976) Mechanical factors in spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis. Clin Orthop 117:59–67 111. Vaccaro AR, Ring D, Scuderi G, et al. (1997) Predictors of outcome in patients with chronic back pain and low-grade spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:2030–2034 112. Valkenburg HA, Haanen HCM (1982) The epidemiology of low back pain. In: White AA, Gordon SL (1982) Proc Am Assoc Orthop Surg Symposium on Low Back Pain:9–22 113. Vogt MT, Rubin DA, Valentin RS, et al. (1998) Lumbar olisthesis and lower back symptoms in elderly white women: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Spine 23:2640–2647 114. Vogt MT, Rubin DA, Valentin RS, et al. (1999) Degenerative lumbar listhesis and bone min- eral density in elderly women. Spine 24:2536– 2541 115. Whitesides TE, Horton WC, Hutton WC, Hodges L (2005) Spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. A study of pelvic and lumbosacral parameters of possible etiologic effect in two genetically and geographically distinct groups with high occurrence. Spine 30:S12 –S21 116. Willburger RE (2004) Spondylolyse und Spondylolisthese. In: Wirth CJ, Zichner L. Ortho- pädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie – Wirbelsäule und Thorax. Ed. Crämer J., 1st ed. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart New York, pp 191–202 117. Wiltse LL, Jackson DW (1976) Treatment of spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis in chil- dren. Clin Orthop Relat Res 117:92–100 118. Wiltse LL, Newman P, MacNab I (1976) Classification of spondylolysis and spondylolisthe- sis. Clin Orthop 117:23–29 119. Wiltse LL, Rothmann LG (1989) Spondylolisthesis: Classification, diagnosis, and natural history. Semin Spine Surg 1:78–94 120. Wiltse LL, Widell EH, Jackson DW (1975) Fatigue fracture: the basic lesion is isthmic spon- dylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 57:17–22 121. Wiltse LL, Winter R (1983) Terminology and measurement of spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 65A:768–772 122. Winter RB (1982) Severe spondylolisthesis in Marfan’s syndrome: report of 2 cases. J Pedi- atr Orthop 2:51 –53 123. Zhao J, Hou T, Wang X, et al. (2003) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using one diagonal fusion cage with transpedicular/rod fixation. Eur Spine J 12:173–177 124. Zhao J, Liu F, Shi HG, et al. (2006) Biomechanical and clinical study on screw hook fixation afterdirectrepairoflumbarspondylolysis.ChinJTraumatol9:288–92 Spondylolisthesis Chapter 27 763 . on the age of the patient, symptoms, etiology as well as the degree of slip- page. General objectives of treatment are to re- lieve pain, reverse neurologic deficit and, in cases of severe slippage,. of complications. Particularly the manage- ment of high-grade spondylolisthesis is a surgical challenge and technically demanding. In children with high-grade spondylolisthesis,fusiontoL4is often. percentage of slippage in measuring instability and progres- sion. Spondylodesis alone, even in the presence of minor neural deficits, tight ham- strings, or both, gave relief of pain and resolution of