STUDY DESIGN:
Clinical trial subgroup analysis.

OBJECTIVE:
To compare outcomes of different fusion techniques treating degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Summary of Background Data. Surgery has been shown to be more effective than nonoperative treatment out to 4 years. Questions remain regarding the differential effect of fusion technique.

METHODS:
Surgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 states with at least 12 weeks of symptoms and confirmatory imaging showing stenosis and DS were studied. In addition to standard decompressive laminectomy, 1 of 3 fusion techniques was employed at the surgeon's discretion: posterolateral in situ fusion (PLF); posterolateral instrumented fusion with pedicle screws (PPS); or PPS plus interbody fusion (360 degrees). Main outcome measures were the SF-36 bodily pain (BP) and physical function (PF) scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) assessed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly to 4 years. The as-treated analysis combined the randomized and observational cohorts using mixed longitudinal models adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS:
Of 380 surgical patients, 21% (N = 80) received a PLF; 56% (N = 213) received a PPS; 17% (N = 63) received a 360 degrees; and 6% (N = 23) had decompression only without fusion. Early outcomes varied, favoring PLF compared to PPS at 6 weeks (PF: 12.73 vs. 6.22, P < 0.020) and 3 months (PF: 25.24 vs.18.95, P < 0.025) and PPS compared to 360 degrees at 6 weeks (ODI: -14.46 vs. -9.30, P < 0.03) and 3 months (ODI: -22.30 vs. -16.78, P < 0.02). At 2 years, 360 degrees had better outcomes: BP: 39.08 versus 29.17 PLF, P < 0.011; and versus 29.13 PPS, P < 0.002; PF: 31.93 versus 23.27 PLF, P < 0.021; and versus 25.29 PPS, P < 0.036. However, these differences were not maintained at 3- and 4-year follow-up, when there were no statistically significant differences between the 3 fusion groups.

CONCLUSION:
In patients with DS and associated spinal stenosis, no consistent differences in clinical outcomes were seen among fusion groups over 4 years.



Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
80% Article relates to my practice (12/15)
13% Article does not relate to my practice (2/15)
6% Undecided (1/15)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

66% Yes (10/15)
20% No (3/15)
13% Undecided (2/15)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/15)
100% No (15/15)
0% Undecided (0/15)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

13% Level 1 (2/15)
20% Level 2 (3/15)
53% Level 3 (8/15)
13% Level 4 (2/15)
0% Level 5 (0/15)