POSTERIOR STABILIZATION FOR LUMBOSACRAL INSTABILITY

Main Article Content

Dr. Swarnarekha Narayanan
Dr B Sakthisrinivasan
Dr. Mathan Sankar. S

Keywords

Lumbosacral instability, Posterior stabilization, Pedicle screw, Interbody fusion, Spine surgery

Abstract

Background: Lumbar and lumbosacral instability involving the L3–L4, L4–L5, and L5–S1 levels is a major cause of chronic low back pain, radiculopathy, and functional impairment. Posterior stabilization using pedicle screw–rod constructs, with or without interbody fusion, is considered the gold standard for restoring segmental stability, alleviating pain, and promoting fusion. This study evaluates the clinical and radiological outcomes of posterior stabilization in 100 patients with instability at L3–L4, L4–L5, and L5–S1, with a primary focus on the lumbosacral junction.


Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted on 100 patients with symptomatic instability at L3–L4, L4–L5, or L5–S1 due to degenerative spondylolisthesis, post-traumatic instability, or post-laminectomy changes. All patients underwent posterior stabilization using pedicle screw–rod constructs; 65 patients also received interbody fusion. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Radiological assessment included fusion status, segmental disc height, and segmental lordotic angle at the involved level at 12 months. Complications were documented. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-tests, with p < 0.05 considered significant.


Results: The mean age was 52.4 ± 11.6 years, with 62% males. VAS improved from 7.6 ± 1.1 preoperatively to 2.1 ± 0.9 at 12 months (p < 0.001), and ODI improved from 62.5 ± 9.8% to 18.4 ± 7.3% (p < 0.001). Solid fusion was achieved in 92% of patients. Mean disc height and segmental lordosis at the affected levels (L3–L4, L4–L5, or L5–S1) showed significant improvement at 12 months. Complications were minimal, including superficial wound infection (6%), transient neuropraxia (3%), and hardware failure (1%). No permanent neurological deficits were observed.


Conclusion: Posterior stabilization with pedicle screw–rod constructs is an effective and safe intervention for lumbar instability at L3–L4, L4–L5, and L5–S1, resulting in significant pain relief, functional improvement, high fusion rates, and restoration of segmental alignment. The procedure demonstrates a low complication profile and is effective across a range of etiologies. Long-term studies are recommended to evaluate durability, adjacent segment effects, and outcomes of minimally invasive approaches.

Abstract 0 | Pdf Downloads 0

References

1. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical biomechanics of the spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1990.
2. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 6: fusion for spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2:673–678.
3. Boden SD, Wiesel SW. Lumbar spine instability. Orthop Clin North Am. 1990;21:95–104.
4. Frymoyer JW. The adult spine: principles and practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997.
5. Kalichman L, Kim DH, Li L, et al. Spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis: epidemiology and clinical aspects. Spine J. 2009;9:1–8.
6. Denis F. The three-column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine. 1983;8:817–831.
7. McAfee PC, Bohlman HH. Postlaminectomy spondylolisthesis. Spine. 1984;9:780–789.
8. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(4):CD001352.
9. Chou R, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, et al. Surgery for low back pain. Evidence-based guideline. Spine. 2009;34:1094–110.
10. Kim YJ, Lenke LG. Pedicle screw instrumentation in the lumbar spine. Spine J. 2005;5:1–12.
11. Harms J, Jeszenszky D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a unilateral transforaminal approach. Spine. 1998;23:1967–1974.
12. Kimura H, Yamazaki K, Nakamura H, et al. Clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar stabilization for degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:E137–E142.
13. Ahn DK, Kim IS, Kim SH. Long-term outcomes of pedicle screw fixation for L5–S1 instability. Spine J. 2018;18:123–130.
14. Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J. Posterior stabilization techniques in the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:100–108.
15. Lee JH, Kim KT, Suk KS, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of posterior lumbar fusion: a 5-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:1024–1032.
16. Kimura H, Yamazaki K, Nakamura H, et al. Clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar stabilization for degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:E137–E142.
17. Ahn DK, Kim IS, Kim SH. Long-term outcomes of pedicle screw fixation for L5–S1 instability. Spine J. 2018;18:123–130.
18. Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J. Posterior stabilization techniques in the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:100–108.
19. Harms J, Jeszenszky D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a unilateral transforaminal approach. Spine. 1998;23:1967–1974.
20. Kim YJ, Lenke LG. Pedicle screw instrumentation in the lumbar spine. Spine J. 2005;5:1–12.
21. Lee JH, Kim KT, Suk KS, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of posterior lumbar fusion: a 5-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:1024–1032.
22. Chou R, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, et al. Surgery for low back pain. Evidence-based guideline. Spine. 2009;34:1094–110.
23. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(4):CD001352.
24. Kimura H, Nakamura H, Haro H, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of pedicle screw constructs in lumbar spine stabilization. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27:97–104.
25. Phan K, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22:593–609.
26. Wang MY, Cummock MD, Mummaneni PV. Minimally invasive posterior lumbar fusion: indications and outcomes. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E11.