Cargando…

Evaluating Instability in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Objective Variables Versus Surgeon Impressions

The subjective degenerative spondylolisthesis instability classification (S-DSIC) system attempts to define preoperative instability associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The system guides surgical decision-making based on numerous indicators of instability that surgeons subje...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: MacLean, Mark A., Bailey, Chris, Fisher, Charles, Rampersaud, Yoga Raja, Greene, Ryan, Abraham, Edward, Dea, Nicholas, Hall, Hamilton, Manson, Neil, Glennie, Raymond Andrew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9678565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36420353
http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.22.00052
Descripción
Sumario:The subjective degenerative spondylolisthesis instability classification (S-DSIC) system attempts to define preoperative instability associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The system guides surgical decision-making based on numerous indicators of instability that surgeons subjectively assess and incorporate. A more objective classification is warranted in order to decrease variation among surgeons. In this study, our objectives included (1) proposing an objective version of the DSIC system (O-DSIC) based on the best available clinical and biomechanical data and (2) comparing subjective surgeon perceptions (S-DSIC) with an objective measure (O-DSIC) of instability related to DLS. METHODS: In this multicenter cohort study, we prospectively enrolled 408 consecutive adult patients who received surgery for symptomatic DLS. Surgeons prospectively categorized preoperative instability using the existing S-DSIC system. Subsequently, an O-DSIC system was created. Variables selected for inclusion were assigned point values based on previously determined evidence quality. DSIC types were derived by point summation: 0 to 2 points was considered stable, Type I); 3 points, potentially unstable, Type II; and 4 to 5 points, unstable, Type III. Surgeons’ subjective perceptions of instability (S-DSIC) were retrospectively compared with O-DSIC types. RESULTS: The O-DSIC system includes 5 variables: presence of facet effusion, disc height preservation (≥6.5 mm), translation (≥4 mm), a kyphotic or neutral disc angle in flexion, and low back pain (≥5 of 10 intensity). Type I (n = 176, 57.0%) and Type II (n = 164, 53.0%) were the most common DSIC types according to the O-DSIC and S-DSIC systems, respectively. Surgeons categorized higher degrees of instability with the S-DSIC than the O-DSIC system in 130 patients (42%) (p < 0.001). The assignment of DSIC types was not influenced by demographic variables with either system. CONCLUSIONS: The O-DSIC system facilitates objective assessment of preoperative instability related to DLS. Surgeons assigned higher degrees of instability with the S-DSIC than the O-DSIC system in 42% of cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.