Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 68 - 68
1 Mar 2008
Simmons E Huckell C Zheng Y
Full Access

Fifty-two patients older than sixty years had undergone multilevel lumbar decompression and fusion with instrumentation and reached a minimum two-year follow up. The relationship between abnormal sagittal plane configuration of the proximal segments and the number of lumbar fusion segments was radiographically analyzed. Group A (L1-L5 or S1) patients had two (20%) proximal vertebral compression fractures and four (40%) focal kyphosis. Group B (L2-L5 or S1) patients had one (6%) proximal vertebral compression fractures, five (33%) retrolisthesis and two (13%) focal kyphosis. Group C (L3-S1) had seven (39%) retrolisthesis. Group D had only one retrolisthesis and two disc height loss. Radiographically analyze the relationship between abnormal sagittal plane configuration of the proximal segments and the number of lumbar fusion segments in patients older than sixty years old. It appears that lumbar fusion up to L1 causes more kyphotic changes and topping off syndrome in the elderly. Fusion L2-L5 or S1 seems having less severe adjacent level degeneration. Retrolisthesis is a significant problem in fusion from L3-L5 or S1. The least adjacent level degenerative changes were seen in L4-S1 fusion. Selected limited instrumentation avoiding kyphotic segments or extending the fusion above the thoracolumbar junction may be the needed. Solid fusion was seen in 46 (88%) patients. There were ten patients in group A, and two (20%) had vertebral compression fractures in the most cranial vertebrae and four (40%) focal kyphosis. Of fifteen patients in group B, one (6%) had compression fracture, five (33%) retrolisthesis, and two (13%) focal kyphosis. Of eighteen patients in group C, retrolisthesis was seen in seven (39%) patients. Group D had nine patients with only one patient having retrolisthesis and two having disc height loss. Since January 1997, there were fifty-two consecutive patients with an average age of seventy years who have undergone multilevel lumbar decompression and posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw-rod instrumentation, and have reached a minimum two-year follow up. Postoperative radiographs of lumbar fusion were classified into group A (L1-L5 or S1), group B (L2-L5 or S1), group C (L3-L5 or S1) and group D (L4-S1)


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1244 - 1249
1 Sep 2013
Jeon C Park J Chung N Son K Lee Y Kim J

We investigated the spinopelvic morphology and global sagittal balance of patients with a degenerative retrolisthesis or anterolisthesis. A total of 269 consecutive patients with a degenerative spondylolisthesis were included in this study. There were 95 men and 174 women with a mean age of 64.3 years (sd 10.5; 40 to 88). A total of 106 patients had a pure retrolisthesis (R group), 130 had a pure anterolisthesis (A group), and 33 had both (R+A group).

A backward slip was found in the upper lumbar levels (mostly L2 or L3) with an almost equal gender distribution in both the R and R+A groups. The pelvic incidence and sacral slope of the R group were significantly lower than those of the A (both p < 0.001) and R+A groups (both p < 0.001). The lumbar lordosis of the R+A group was significantly greater than that of the R (p = 0.025) and A groups (p = 0.014). The C7 plumb line of the R group was located more posteriorly than that of the A group (p = 0.023), but was no different from than that of the R+A group (p = 0.422). The location of C7 plumb line did not differ between the three groups (p = 0.068). The spinosacral angle of the R group was significantly smaller than that of the A group (p < 0.001) and R+A group (p < 0.001).

Our findings imply that there are two types of degenerative retrolisthesis: one occurs primarily as a result of degeneration in patients with low pelvic incidence, and the other occurs secondarily as a compensatory mechanism in patients with an anterolisthesis and high pelvic incidence.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1244–9.