A review article on recent trends in surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis

Vol 4 | Issue 1 | Jan-Jun 2019 | page:12-17  | Amogh Arun Zawar, Shailesh Hadgaonkar, Rajeev Joshi, Madhav Borate, Parag Sancheti, Ashok Shyam

Authors: Amogh Arun Zawar [1], Shailesh Hadgaonkar[1], Rajeev Joshi [1], Madhav Borate [1], Parag Sancheti [1], Ashok Shyam [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institue of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Amogh Arun Zawar,
Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti institute of orthopaedics and rehabilitation,  Shivajinagar, Pune.
E-mail: aaz190391@gmail.com


Background : Current guidelines for the optimal treatment degenerative spondylolisthesis are weak and based on limited high-quality evidence. There is some moderate evidence that decompression alone may be a feasible treatment with lower surgical morbidity and similar outcomes to fusion when performed in a select population with a low-grade slip. Similarly, addition of interbody fusion may be best suited to a subset of patients with high-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis, although this remains controversial. Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly being utilized for both decompression and fusion surgeries with more and more studies showing similar outcomes and lower postoperative morbidity for patients. This will likely be an area of continued intense research. Finally, the role of spondylolisthesis reduction will likely be determined as further investigation into optimal sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters is conducted. Future identification of ideal thresholds for sagittal vertical axis and slip angle that will prevent progression and reoperation will play an important role in surgical treatment planning.
Methods : Recent articles were searched on search engines such as PubMed, Google Scholar and additionaly by checking references of different articles.
Summary : Posterolateral spinal fusion remains the treatment of choice, the use of interbodies and decompressions without fusion may be efficacious in certain populations. However, additional high-quality evidence is needed, especially in newer areas of practice such as minimally invasive techniques and sagittal balance correction.
Keywords : ‘Spondylolisthesis’, ‘Recent trends in management’, ‘Fusion techniques’, ‘MI-TLIF’, ‘Pseudarthrosis’


1. Sclafani JA, Constantin A, Ho PS, Akuthota V, Chan L. Descriptive analysis of spinal neuroaxial injections, surgical interventions, and physical therapy utilization for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis within medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(4):240–6.
2. Andre M. Samuel & Harold G. Moore & Matthew E. Cunningham; Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Current Concepts and New Evidence; Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med; Oct 2017
3. Ryan C. Campbell, BMed, Ralph J. Mobbs, MBBS, MD, FRACS, Victor M. Lu, MBBS, Joshua Xu, BSc, Prashanth J. Rao, MBBS, PhD, FRACS, and Kevin Phan, BSc(Adv), MPhil. Posterolateral Fusion Versus Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Global Spine Journal Volume XX: 1-9 2017.
4. Gottschalk MB, Premkumar A, Sweeney K, et al. Posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis with and without interbody arthrodesis for L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis: a comparative value analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:917-925.
5. McAnany SJ, Baird EO, Qureshi SA, Hecht AC, Heller JG, Anderson PA. Posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis : a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016;41:E1408-E1414.
6. Rousseau MA, Lazennec JY, Bass EC, Saillant G. Predictors of outcomes after posterior decompression and fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(1):55–60.
7. Ha KY, Na KH, Shin JH, Kim KW. Comparison of posterolateral fusion with and without additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(4):229–34.
8. Peter B. Derman & Todd J. Albert : Interbody Fusion Techniques in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ; Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. (104-123)
9. Liu J, Deng H, Long X, Chen X, Xu R, Liu Z. A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2015.
10. Yan D-L, Pei F-X, Li J, Soo C-L. Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(10):1311–6.
11. Sembrano JN, Tohmeh A, Isaacs R, Degenerative Study Group. two-year comparative outcomes of mis lateral and MIS transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: part I: clinical findings. Spine. 2016;41(Suppl 8):S123–32.
12. Isaacs RE, Sembrano JN, Tohmeh AG, Degenerative Study Group. Two-year comparative outcomes of mis lateral and mis transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: part II: radiographic findings. Spine. 2016;41(Suppl 8):S133–44.
13. Gurpreet S. Gandhoke, MD, MCh, Manish K. Kasliwal, MD, MCh, Justin S. Smith, MD, PhD, JoAnne Nieto, RN, David Ibrahimi, MD, Paul Park, MD, Frank Lamarca, MD, Christopher Shaffrey, MD, FACS, David O. Okonkwo, MD, PhD, Adam S. Kanter, MD ; A Multi-Center Evaluation of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Following High-Grade Spondylolisthesis Reduction and Fusion ; Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques 2014; 152-168
14. Ruf M, Koch H, Melcher RP, Harms J: Anatomic reduction and monosegmental fusion in high-grade developmental spondylolisthesis, Spine 31:269–274, 2006.
15. Poussa M, Remes V, Lamberg T, Tervahartiala P, Schlenzka D, Yrj¨onen T, Osterman K, Seitsalo S, Helenius I. Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis in adolescence with reduction or fusion in situ: long-termclinical, radiologic, and functional outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Mar 1;31(5):583-90; discussion 591-2.
16. Sasso RC, Shively KD, Reilly TM: Transvertebral transsacral strut grafting for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis L5-S1 with fibular allograft, J Spinal Disord Tech 21:328–333, 2008.
17. N. R. Khan, A. J. Clark, S. L. Lee, G. T. Venable, N. B. Rossi, and K. T. Foley, “Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis,” Neurosurgery, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 847– 874, 2015.
18. Ai-Min Wu, Chun-Hui Chen, Zhi-Hao Shen, Zhen-Hua Feng, Wan-Qing Weng, Shu-Min Li, Yong-Long Chi, Li-Hui Yin, andWen-Fei Ni; The Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Posterior Approach Spinal Fusion in Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: The Current Evidence from Prospective Comparative Studies; Hindawi BioMed Research International Volume 2017, Article ID 8423638, 9 pages
19. Longo UG, Loppini M, Romeo G, et al. Evidence-based surgical management of spondylolisthesis: reduction or arthrodesis in situ. J Bone Joint Surg 2014;96:53–8.
20. Ozgur Dede, MD, Daniel Thuillier, MD, Murat Pekmezci, MD, Christopher P. Ames, MD, Serena S. Hu, MD, Sigurd H. Berven, MD, Vedat Deviren, MD; Revision surgery for lumbar pseudarthrosis; The Spine Journal – (2013); vol 1; 223-256
21. Lauerman WC, Bradford DS, Ogilvie JW, Transfeldt EE. Results of lumbar pseudarthrosis repair. J Spinal Disord 1992;5:149–57.
22. Albert TJ, Pinto M, Denis F. Management of symptomatic lumbar pseudarthrosis with anteroposterior fusion. A functional and radiographic outcome study. Spine 2000;25:123–9;
23. Buttermann GR, Garvey TA, Hunt AF, et al. Lumbar fusion results related to diagnosis. Spine 1998;23:116–27.
24. Zhao-Ming Zhong, Vedat Devirena, Bobby Taya, Shane Burcha, Sigurd H. Berven et al. Adjacent segment disease after instrumented fusion for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis: Incidence and risk factors. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 156 (2017) 29–34.
25. P. Zencica, R. Chaloupka, J. Hladíková, M. Krbec, Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbosacral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a retrospective radiological and clinical analysis, Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cech. 77(2010) 124–130.
26. H. Sakaura, T. Yamashita, T. Miwa, K. Ohzono, T. Ohwada, Symptomatic adjacent segment pathology after posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis, Global Spine J. 3 (2013) 219–224.
27. T.K. Cho, J.H. Lim, S.H. Kim, W.T. Rhee, W.J. Kim, S.I. Ha, I.T. Jang, Preoperative predictable factors for the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration requiring second operation after spinal fusion at isolated L4-L5 level, J. Neurol. Surg. A Cent. Eur. Neurosurg. 75 (2014) 270–275.
28. Remi M. Ajiboye MD, Stephen D. Zoller MD, Anthony D’Oro BA, Zachary D. Burke MD, William Sheppard BS,Christopher Wang BS, ,Zorica Buser PhD, Jeffrey C. Wang MD, Sina Pourtaheri MD : The Utility of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement is Questionable: A Review of 9957 Cases ; SPINE An International Journal for the study of the spine; 2016;223-250.
29. Cole T, Veeravagu A, Zhang M, Li A, Ratliff JK. Intraoperative neuromonitoring in single level spinal procedures: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis in a national longitudinal database. Spine. 2014;39(23):1950-1959.
30. Alemoet S, Sayadipour : A. Role of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring in lumbosacral spine fusion and instrumentation: a retrospective study. World neurosurgery. 2010;73(1):72-76.

How to Cite this Article: Zawar AA, Hadgaonkar S, Joshi R, Borate M, Sancheti P, Shyam A. A review article on recent trends in surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis. Journal of Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation 2019 Jan-Jun; 4(1):12-17.

 (Abstract)      (Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)