Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
- PMID: 27074067
- DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1508788
Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
Abstract
Background: The comparative effectiveness of performing instrumented (rigid pedicle screws affixed to titanium alloy rods) lumbar spinal fusion in addition to decompressive laminectomy in patients with symptomatic lumbar grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis is unknown.
Methods: In this randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients, 50 to 80 years of age, who had stable degenerative spondylolisthesis (degree of spondylolisthesis, 3 to 14 mm) and symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis to undergo either decompressive laminectomy alone (decompression-alone group) or laminectomy with posterolateral instrumented fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome measure was the change in the physical-component summary score of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36; range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life) 2 years after surgery. The secondary outcome measure was the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more disability related to back pain). Patients were followed for 4 years.
Results: A total of 66 patients (mean age, 67 years; 80% women) underwent randomization. The rate of follow-up was 89% at 1 year, 86% at 2 years, and 68% at 4 years. The fusion group had a greater increase in SF-36 physical-component summary scores at 2 years after surgery than did the decompression-alone group (15.2 vs. 9.5, for a difference of 5.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 11.3; P=0.046). The increases in the SF-36 physical-component summary scores in the fusion group remained greater than those in the decompression-alone group at 3 years and at 4 years (P=0.02 for both years). With respect to reductions in disability related to back pain, the changes in the Oswestry Disability Index scores at 2 years after surgery did not differ significantly between the study groups (-17.9 in the decompression-alone group and -26.3 in the fusion group, P=0.06). More blood loss and longer hospital stays occurred in the fusion group than in the decompression-alone group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The cumulative rate of reoperation was 14% in the fusion group and 34% in the decompression-alone group (P=0.05).
Conclusions: Among patients with degenerative grade I spondylolisthesis, the addition of lumbar spinal fusion to laminectomy was associated with slightly greater but clinically meaningful improvement in overall physical health-related quality of life than laminectomy alone. (Funded by the Jean and David Wallace Foundation and others; SLIP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00109213.).
Comment in
-
Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis--Safeguard or Superfluous Surgical Implant?N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 14;374(15):1478-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1600955. N Engl J Med. 2016. PMID: 27074071 No abstract available.
-
Fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis becomes controversial…again.Evid Based Med. 2016 Aug;21(4):148-9. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110474. Epub 2016 Jul 7. Evid Based Med. 2016. PMID: 27388799 No abstract available.
-
Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis With Spondylolisthesis: Results From 2 Randomized Trials.Neurosurgery. 2016 Aug;79(2):N18-20. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000489889.10464.a7. Neurosurgery. 2016. PMID: 27428640 No abstract available.
-
To Fuse or Not to Fuse: That is (Still) the Question.World Neurosurg. 2016 Oct;94:563-565. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.07.083. Epub 2016 Jul 28. World Neurosurg. 2016. PMID: 27476692 No abstract available.
-
Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):597-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1606502. N Engl J Med. 2016. PMID: 27509111 No abstract available.
-
Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):598. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1606502. N Engl J Med. 2016. PMID: 27509112 No abstract available.
-
Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):598-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1606502. N Engl J Med. 2016. PMID: 27509113 No abstract available.
-
Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):600-1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1606502. N Engl J Med. 2016. PMID: 27517105 No abstract available.
-
Fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis: how to reconcile conflicting evidence.J Spine Surg. 2016 Jun;2(2):143-5. doi: 10.21037/jss.2016.06.02. J Spine Surg. 2016. PMID: 27683712 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
More on Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 3;375(18):1807. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1610998. N Engl J Med. 2016. PMID: 27806223 No abstract available.
-
More on Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 3;375(18):1806-1807. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1610998. N Engl J Med. 2016. PMID: 27806224 No abstract available.
-
Point of View.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Jan 1;42(1):33. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001754. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017. PMID: 28002362 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical