Is There A Role For Decompression Alone For Treating Symptomatic Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis?: A Systematic Review.

A posterior decompression with an instrumented fusion is one of the most common surgical procedures performed for treating symptomatic spinal stenosis associated with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). However, some patients may benefit from a decompression alone, avoiding complications related to instrumentation and fusion. To identify the characteristics of patients with symptomatic DS who may be successfully treated with an isolated decompression. A systematic literature review of studies including patients who underwent decompression without instrumentation for treatment of DS. A systematic review of the Medline database was performed. Retrospective and prospective studies of patients with DS who underwent a decompression were included, as well as studies comparing decompression with instrumented decompression. All the articles were classified according to their level of evidence. Thirteen studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. We identified several characteristics that may be associated with a less favorable outcome after a decompression alone: a facet angle >50 degrees, a disk space of >6.5 mm, presence of low back pain rather than lower extremity symptoms, presence of hypermobility in the listhetic level on dynamic radiographs (>1.25 to 2 mm), and resection of the posterior elements. The majority of the studies comparing decompression alone to decompression and instrumented fusion included in our review suggested similar clinical outcomes with both procedures; however, with long-term follow-up, fusion may provide better outcomes. Decompression with a noninstrumented fusion is also a good alternative to improve symptoms in selected patients, potentially decreasing the risk of reoperation compared with an instrumented fusion. Satisfactory clinical outcome can be achieved with an isolated decompression in selected patients, avoiding the additional risks and costs of instrumentation and spinal fusion. Noninstrumented fusion is also an interesting alternative to instrumented fusion for well-selected patients to decrease complications related to instrumentation

Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System

© 2022 The authors.OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.N