Background: Addition of fusion to decompression for stenosis with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis is a controversial topic, and the question remains if fusion provides any benefit to the patient that warrants the increased health care utilization and perioperative morbidity. There is no consensus on indications for use of fusion over decompression alone.
Methods: Patients received fusion or decompression according to a decision-making protocol based on their pattern of complaints, location of the compression, and facet angles and effusion as proven predictors of postoperative instability. Propensity score matching of patients was done for baseline data.
Results: The study comprised 102 patients in 2 equally sized groups. No intergroup differences in numeric rating scale and Oswestry Disability Index were detected at any follow-up point (all P > 0.05). Duration of surgery, length of stay, estimated blood loss, and radiation doses were higher in the fusion group (all P < 0.001). Cumulative reoperation rate was similar with 6% for fusion and 8% for decompression (P > 0.05), as was the complication rate (8% vs. 6%, P > 0.05). Postoperative iatrogenic progression of spondylolisthesis requiring fusion surgery was seen in only 2% in the decompression group.
Conclusions: Use of a decision-making protocol led to a low rate of iatrogenically increased spondylolisthesis after decompression, while retaining outcomes. These data suggest that a decision-making protocol based on clinical history, location of nerve root compression, and proven radiologic predictors of postoperative instability assigns patients to fusion or decompression in a safe and effective manner.
Keywords: Decision making; Decompression; Neurogenic claudication; Spinal fusion; Spondylolisthesis; Stenosis.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.