Comprehensive comparison of three techniques for the treatment of adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion

PurposeAdjacent segment degeneration (ASD) following lumbar fusion is technically challenging for spine surgeons. Posterolateral open fusion surgery with pedicle screw fixation is an effective way to treat symptomatic ASD with favorable clinical outcomes; however, it is associated with an increased morbidity rate. Therefore, minimally invasive spine surgery is advocated. This study was designed to compare clinical outcomes among patients with symptomatic ASD who underwent percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) with the transforaminal approach, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (CBT-PLIF), and PLIF with traditional trajectory screw fixation (TT-PLIF).MethodsA retrospective study was conductedon 46 patients (26 men and 20 women; average age 60.8 ± 6.78 years) with symptomatic ASD. The patients were treated with three approaches. The operation time, incision length, time to return to work, complications, and the like were compared among three groups. Intervertebral disc (IVD) space height, angular motion, and vertebral slippage were obtained to assess spine biomechanical stability following surgery. The visual analog scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index were evaluated at preoperation and 1-week, 3-month, and the latest follow-ups. Clinical global outcomes were also estimated using modified MacNab criteria.ResultsThe operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, and time to return to work for the PTED group were significantly decreased compared with those for the other two groups (P < 0.05). The radiological indicators in the CBT-PLIF group and TT-PLIF group had better biomechanical stability compared with those in the PTED groups at the latest follow-up (P < 0.05). The back pain VAS score in the CBT-PLIF group was significantly decreased compared with those in the other two groups at the latest follow-up (P < 0.05). The good-to-excellent rate was 82.35% in the PTED group, 88.89% in the CBT-PLIF group, and 85.00% in the TT-PLIF group. No serious complications were encountered. Two patients experienced dysesthesia in the PTED group; screw malposition was found in one patient in the CBT-PLIF group. One case with a dural matter tear was observed in the TT-PLIF group.ConclusionAll three approaches can treat patients with symptomatic ASD efficiently and safely. Functional recovery was more accelerated in the PTED group compared with the other approaches in the short term; CBT-PLIF and TT-PLIF can provide superior biomechanical stability to the lumbosacral spine following decompression compared with PTED; however, compared with TT-PLIF, CBT-PLIF can significantly reduce back pain caused by iatrogenic muscle injury and improve functional recovery. Therefore, superior clinical outcomes were achieved in the CBT-PLIF group compared with the PTED and TT-PLIF groups in the long term.