We describe the results of a prospective case series of patients with spondylolysis, evaluating a technique of direct stabilisation of the pars interarticularis with a construct that consists of a pair of pedicle screws connected by a U-shaped modular link passing beneath the spinous process. Tightening the link to the screws compresses bone graft in the defect in the pars, providing rigid intrasegmental fixation. We have carried out this procedure on 20 patients aged between nine and 21 years with a defect of the pars at L5, confirmed on CT. The mean age of the patients was 13.9 years (9 to 21). They had a grade I or less spondylolisthesis and no evidence of intervertebral degeneration on MRI. The mean follow-up was four years (2.3 to 7.3). The patients were assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). At the latest follow-up, 18 patients had an excellent clinical outcome, with a significant (p < 0.001) improvement in their ODI and VAS scores. The mean ODI score at final follow-up was 8%. Assessment of the defect by CT showed a rate of union of 80%. There were no complications involving the internal fixation. The strength of the construct removes the need for post-operative immobilisation.
"For L4 spondylolysis, there are two treatment options. In young patients with an intact intervertebral disc, the preferred treatment is repair and instrumentation (without any intervertebral fusion), but in cases with an underlying degenerated disc, fusion is the treatment of choice (Fig. 4) [31,37]. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is mostly caused by osteoarthritis (spondylosis). Clinically, the symptoms of patients with LSS can be categorized into two groups; regional (low back pain, stiffness, and so on) or radicular (spinal stenosis mainly presenting as neurogenic claudication). Both of these symptoms usually improve with appropriate conservative treatment, but in refractory cases, surgical intervention is occasionally indicated. In the patients who primarily complain of radiculopathy with an underlying biomechanically stable spine, a decompression surgery alone using a less invasive technique may be sufficient. Preoperatively, with the presence of indicators such as failed back surgery syndrome (revision surgery), degenerative instability, considerable essential deformity, symptomatic spondylolysis, refractory degenerative disc disease, and adjacent segment disease, lumbar fusion is probably recommended. Intraoperatively, in cases with extensive decompression associated with a wide disc space or insufficient bone stock, fusion is preferred. Instrumentation improves the fusion rate, but it is not necessarily associated with improved recovery rate and better functional outcome.
Asian spine journal 08/2014; 8(4):521-30. DOI:10.4184/asj.2014.8.4.521
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Athletes present with back pain as a common symptom. Various sports involve repetitive hyperextension of the spine along with axial loading and appear to predispose athletes to the spinal pathology spondylolysis. Many athletes with acute back pain require nonsurgical treatment methods; however, persistent recurrent back pain may indicate degenerative disc disease or spondylolysis. Young athletes have a greater incidence of spondylolysis. Surgical solutions are many, and yet there are relatively few data in the literature on both the techniques and outcomes of spondylolytic repair in athletes. In this study, the authors undertook a review of the surgical techniques and outcomes in the treatment of symptomatic spondylolysis in athletes.
A systematic review of the MEDLINE and PubMed databases was performed using the following key words to identify articles published between 1950 and 2011: "spondylolysis," "pars fracture," "repair," "athlete," and/or "sport." Papers on both athletes and nonathletes were included in the review. Articles were read for data on methodology (retrospective vs prospective), type of treatment, number of patients, mean patient age, and mean follow-up.
Eighteen articles were included in the review. Eighty-four athletes and 279 nonathletes with a mean age of 20 and 21 years, respectively, composed the population under review. Most of the fractures occurred at L-5 in both patient groups, specifically 96% and 92%, respectively. The average follow-up period was 26 months for athletes and 86 months for nonathletes. According to the modified Henderson criteria, 84% (71 of 84) of the athletes returned to their sports activities. The time intervals until their return ranged from 5 to 12 months.
For a young athlete with a symptomatic pars defect, any of the described techniques of repair would probably produce acceptable results. An appropriate preoperative workup is important. The ideal candidate is younger than 20 years with minimal or no listhesis and no degenerative changes of the disc. Limited participation in sports can be expected from 5 to 12 months postoperatively.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A systematic review of the literature was performed to establish whether direct repair of the pars defect or intervertebral fusion achieves better Oswestry Disability Index scores in adolescent spondylolysis or low-grade spondylolisthesis. Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, reporting a minimum total of 80 direct repairs and 108 fusions because of presumed replication of data between studies. Little statistically or clinically significant difference could be established between the two interventions. The only comparative study showed improved long-term outcome with fusion. Further well-designed prospective comparative studies are required to establish the optimum treatment for this condition.
Journal of pediatric orthopaedics. Part B / European Paediatric Orthopaedic Society, Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America 06/2012; 21(6):596-601. DOI:10.1097/BPB.0b013e328355393d · 0.59 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.