We investigated the relationship between spinopelvic
parameters and disc degeneration in young adult patients with spondylolytic
spondylolisthesis. A total of 229 men with a mean age of 21 years
(18 to 26) with spondylolytic spondylolisthesis were identified.
All radiological measurements, including pelvic incidence, sacral
slope, pelvic tilt, lumbar lordosis, sacral inclination, lumbosacral
angle (LSA), and sacrofemoral distance, were calculated from standing
lateral lumbosacral radiographs. The degree of intervertebral disc
degeneration was classified using a modified Pfirrmann scale. We
analysed the spinopelvic parameters according to disc level, degree
of slip and disc degeneration. There were significant positive correlations between the degree
of slip and pelvic incidence (p = 0.009), sacral slope (p = 0.003)
and lumbar lordosis (p = 0.010). The degree of slip and the LSA
were correlated with disc degeneration (p <
0.001 and p = 0.003,
respectively). There was also a significant difference between the
degree of slip (p <
0.001) and LSA (p = 0.006) according to the
segmental level of disc degeneration. Cite this article:
Between January 1990 and December 2000 we carried out 226 SB Charité III disc replacements for lumbar disc degeneration in 160 patients. They were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 79 months (31 to 161) to determine the clinical and radiological outcome. The clinical results were collected by an independent observer, who was not involved in patient selection, treatment or follow-up, using a combination of outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index. Pain was recorded using a visual analogue score, and the most recent radiographs were reviewed. Survival of the device was analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method and showed a cumulative survival of 35% at 156 months when radiological failure was taken as the endpoint. The mean improvement in the Oswestry disability index scores after disc replacement was 14% (6% to 21%) and the mean improvement in the pain score was 1.6 (0.46 to 2.73), both falling below the clinically significant threshold. Removal of the implant was required in 12 patients, four because of implant failure. These poor results indicate that further use of this implant is not justified.
