Tag: pseudarthrosis

Posted on

Incidence and risk factors of adjacent segment degeneration in lumbosacral or lumbo-iliac fusion with L2 as the uppermost instrumented vertebra

J Neurosurg Spine 44:693–703, 2026

This clinical retrospective study evaluates the incidence and risk factors for symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) after instrumented fusion from L2 to the sacrum or ilium in 89 adults treated for diffuse lumbar degeneration or mild–moderate deformity. Over a mean 38.6-month follow-up, 40% developed symptomatic L1–2 ASD and 23.6% required revision, with Kaplan-Meier ASD-free rates of 79% at 1 year and 59% at 3 years.

Multivariate analysis identified L2–3 decompression, preexisting advanced L1–2 disc degeneration, greater postoperative PI–LL mismatch, and higher lordosis distribution index as independent ASD risk factors; distal failures (13.5%) were linked to male sex, younger age, and absence of iliac screws. The authors recommend careful selection of L2 as UIV, balanced lordosis restoration, and consideration of pelvic fixation to mitigate proximal and distal complications.

Aim Quantify incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) after instrumented fusion from L2 (UIV) to sacrum or ilium and identify associated risk factors.

Design/definition Retrospective review (Jan 2016–Dec 2023) of adults undergoing first-time L2–S1/ilium fusion; symptomatic ASD defined by new/worsening pain or neurologic symptoms with L1–2 degenerative/junctional changes (e.g., disc degeneration/stenosis progression, listhesis, junctional kyphosis, fracture, or UIV fixation failure).

Cohort 89 patients (mean age 68.5 years) with mean follow-up 38.6 months.

ASD incidence 36/89 (40%) developed symptomatic ASD at L1–2; mean time to ASD 21 months; 21/89 (23.6%) required reoperation.

ASD-free survival Kaplan-Meier ASD-free rates: 79% at 1 year, 68% at 2 years, 59% at 3 years (mean ASD-free period 52.8 months).

ASD risk factors Higher ASD risk associated with simultaneous decompression at L2–3, preexisting advanced L1–2 disc degeneration, greater postoperative PI-LL mismatch, and higher lordosis distribution index (LDI).

Distal failure incidence 12/89 (13.5%) developed distal failure (including 9 L5–S1 pseudarthroses, 2 sacral fractures, 1 rod fracture); mean time 19 months.

Distal failure risk factors Male sex, younger age, and lack of iliac screws increased risk of distal failure.

Posted on

Fusion Sequence and Risk Factors for Pseudarthrosis in Multilevel Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Neurosurgery 97:1153–1161, 2025

This clinical study evaluates fusion rates, fusion timing, and pseudarthrosis risk factors in 119 patients undergoing 2-level versus 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with minimum two-year follow-up. Fusion was assessed via angular and linear interspinous motion on dynamic radiographs, with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.

Key findings show higher and faster fusion in 2-level ACDF; middle levels fuse earliest while caudal levels have lowest rates. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and multilevel constructs associate with increased pseudarthrosis risk, highlighting material choice and level-specific biomechanics as critical for surgical planning and future research.

Posted on

Which interbody device minimized nonunion, subsidence, and reoperation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?

J Neurosurg Spine 43:453–463, 2024

This meta-analysis found that allograft spacers in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) result in lower nonunion and revision rates compared to PEEK cages, with no significant difference in subsidence risk. Allograft offers enhanced fusion and minimizes revision without increasing subsidence.

• Allograft and PEEK cages are the most commonly used interbody spacers in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), replacing autograft due to lower donor site morbidity.

• This meta-analysis included 10 studies with 1462 patients comparing allograft and PEEK cages for ACDF, analyzing nonunion, subsidence, and reoperation rates.

• Allograft showed a significantly lower rate of nonunion than PEEK cages (OR 0.33, p = 0.01), indicating better fusion outcomes.

• Reoperation due to nonunion was significantly higher with PEEK cages compared to allograft (OR 0.28, p < 0.01), but overall reoperation rates for any cause were not significantly different.

• No significant difference was found in the incidence or amount of subsidence between allograft and PEEK cages.

• Allograft’s osteoconductive properties likely contribute to its higher fusion rate, while PEEK cages may lead to fibrous interface formation, reducing solid fusion.

• Meta-regression showed no significant effect of smoking, age, or number of fused levels on nonunion rates.

• Conclusion: Allograft is advantageous over PEEK cages in ACDF due to higher fusion rates and lower revision risk, without increasing subsidence

Posted on

Does Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Reduce Mechanical Complication and Pseudarthrosis Rate at the Lumbosacral Junction in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery in Comparison to Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

Int J Spine Surg 2025, 19 (4) 409-417

In adult spinal deformity surgery, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at the lumbosacral junction significantly reduces mechanical complications, pseudarthrosis, and reoperation rates compared to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), suggesting ALIF should be preferred unless direct posterior decompression is necessary.

• ALIF (anterior lumbar interbody fusion) at the lumbosacral junction significantly reduces mechanical complications and pseudarthrosis rates compared to PLIF (posterior lumbar interbody fusion) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery.

• ALIF is associated with lower rates of implant-related pain and reoperation than PLIF.

• PLIF is an independent risk factor for mechanical complications in long-segment ASD constructs.

• ALIF results in significantly less blood loss, fewer transfusions, and shorter ICU and hospital stays than PLIF.

• ALIF provides superior biomechanical stability and fusion rates, likely due to better endplate preparation and larger cage footprint.

• PLIF remains suitable for cases requiring direct neural decompression, such as severe stenosis or spondylolisthesis.

• Surgical technique selection should consider patient anatomy, surgical goals, and specific pathology at the lumbosacral junction.

• Study limitations include retrospective design, single-center data, and potential selection bias; further multicenter studies are needed.

Posted on

Pseudarthrosis in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a self-locking, stand-alone cage filled with hydroxyapatite

J Neurosurg Spine 33:717–726, 2020

The goal of this study was to evaluate the incidence of pseudarthrosis after the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in which self-locking, stand-alone intervertebral cages filled with hydroxyapatite were used.

METHODS The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of 49 patients who underwent 1- to 3-level ACDF with self-locking, stand-alone intervertebral cages without plates, with a minimum 2 years of follow-up. The following data were extracted from radiological and clinical charts: age, sex, time and type of pre- and postoperative signs and symptoms, pain status (visual analog scale [VAS]), functional status (Neck Disability Index [NDI]), history of smoking, bone quality (bone densitometry), and complications. Pseudarthrosis was diagnosed by a blinded neuroradiologist using CT scans. Clinical improvement was assessed using pre- and postoperative comparison of VAS and NDI scores. The Wilcoxon test for paired tests was used to evaluate statistical significance using a p value of < 0.05.

RESULTS Three patients (6%) developed symptomatic pseudarthrosis requiring reoperation, with only 1 patient showing clinical worsening due to pseudarthrosis, while the other 2 with pseudarthrosis had associated disc disease at an adjacent level. The rate of symptomatic pseudarthrosis according to the number of operated levels was 0% for 1 level, 8.7% (2/23 patients) for 2 levels, and 7.7% (1/13 patients) for 3 levels. The total pseudarthrosis rate (including both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients) was 16.4%. Considering the clinical outcomes, there was a significant improvement of 75.6% in neck pain and 95.7% in arm pain, as well as a 64.9% improvement in NDI scores. Complications were observed in 18.4% of patients, with adjacent-level degenerative disease being the most prevalent at 14.3%.

CONCLUSIONS ACDF with self-locking, stand-alone cages filled with a hydroxyapatite graft can be used for the surgical treatment of 1- to 3-level CDDD with clinical and radiological outcomes significantly improved after a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Comparative studies are necessary.

 

Posted on

Surgical correction of severe adult lumbar scoliosis (major curves ≥ 75°): retrospective analysis with minimum 2-year follow-up

J Neurosurg Spine 31:548–561, 2019

Prior reports have demonstrated the efficacy of surgical correction for adult lumbar scoliosis. Many of these reports focused on mild to moderate scoliosis. The authors’ objective was to report their experience and to assess outcomes and complications after deformity correction for severe adult scoliosis.

METHODS The authors retrospectively analyzed consecutive adult scoliosis patients with major thoracolumbar/lumbar (TL/L) curves ≥ 75° who underwent deformity correction at their institution. Those eligible with a minimum 2 years of follow-up were included. Demographic, surgical, coronal and sagittal plane radiographic measurements, and healthrelated quality of life (HRQL) scores were analyzed.

RESULTS Among 26 potentially eligible patients, 22 (85%) had a minimum 2 years of follow-up (range 24–89 months) and were included in the study (mean age 57 ± 11 years; 91% women). The cohort comprised 16 (73%), 4 (18%), and 2 (9%) patients with adult idiopathic scoliosis, de novo degenerative scoliosis, and iatrogenic scoliosis, respectively. The surgical approach was posterior-only and multistage anterior-posterior in 18 (82%) and 4 (18%) patients, respectively. Three-column osteotomy was performed in 5 (23%) patients. Transforaminal and anterior lumbar interbody fusion were performed in 14 (64%) and 4 (18%) patients, respectively. All patients had sacropelvic fixation with uppermost instrumented vertebra in the lower thoracic spine (46% [10/22]) versus upper thoracic spine (55% [12/22]). The mean fusion length was 14 ± 3 levels. Preoperative major TL/L and lumbosacral fractional (L4–S1) curves were corrected from 83° ± 8° to 28° ± 13° (p < 0.001) and 34° ± 8° to 13° ± 6° (p < 0.001), respectively. Global coronal and sagittal balance significantly improved from 5 ± 4 cm to 1 ± 1 cm (p = 0.001) and 9 ± 8 cm to 2 ± 3 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. Pelvic tilt significantly improved from 33° ± 9° to 23° ± 10° (p < 0.001). Significant improvement in HRQL measures included the following: Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) pain score (p = 0.009), SRS appearance score (p = 0.004), and SF-12/ SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) score (p = 0.026). Transient and persistent neurological deficits occurred in 8 (36%) and 2 (9%) patients, respectively. Rod fracture/pseudarthrosis occurred in 6 (27%) patients (supplemental rods were utilized more recently in 23%). Revisions were performed in 7 (32%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS In this single-center surgical series for severe adult scoliosis (major curves ≥ 75°), a posterior-only or multistage anterior-posterior approach provided major curve correction of 66% and significant improvements in global coronal and sagittal spinopelvic alignment. Significant improvements were also demonstrated in HRQL measures (SRS pain, SRS appearance, and SF-12/SF-36 PCS). Complications and revisions were comparable to those of other reports involving less severe scoliosis. The results of this study warrant future prospective multicenter studies to further delineate outcomes and complication risks for severe adult scoliosis correction.

Posted on

Complications for minimally invasive lateral interbody arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing prepsoas and transpsoas approaches

J Neurosurg Spine 30:446–460, 2019

Minimally invasive anterolateral retroperitoneal approaches for lumbar interbody arthrodesis have distinct advantages attractive to spine surgeons. Prepsoas or transpsoas trajectories can be employed with differing complication profiles because of the inherent anatomical differences encountered in each approach. The evidence comparing them remains limited because of poor quality data. Here, the authors sought to systematically review the available literature and perform a meta-analysis comparing the two techniques.

METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A database search was used to identify eligible studies. Prepsoas and transpsoas studies were compiled, and each study was assessed for inclusion criteria. Complication rates were recorded and compared between approach groups. Studies incorporating an analysis of postoperative subsidence and pseudarthrosis rates were also assessed and compared.

RESULTS For the prepsoas studies, 20 studies for the complications analysis and 8 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the transpsoas studies, 39 studies for the complications analysis and 19 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the complications analysis, 1874 patients treated via the prepsoas approach and 4607 treated with the transpsoas approach were included. In the transpsoas group, there was a higher rate of transient sensory symptoms (21.7% vs 8.7%, p = 0.002), transient hip flexor weakness (19.7% vs 5.7%, p < 0.001), and permanent neurological weakness (2.8% vs 1.0%, p = 0.005). A higher rate of sympathetic nerve injury was seen in the prepsoas group (5.4% vs 0.0%, p = 0.03). Of the nonneurological complications, major vascular injury was significantly higher in the prepsoas approach (1.8% vs 0.4%, p = 0.01). There was no difference in urological or peritoneal/bowel injury, postoperative ileus, or hematomas (all p > 0.05). A higher infection rate was noted for the trans-psoas group (3.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.01). With regard to postoperative fusion outcomes, similar rates of subsidence (12.2% prepsoas vs 13.8% transpsoas, p = 0.78) and pseudarthrosis (9.9% vs 7.5%, respectively, p = 0.57) were seen between the groups at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS Complication rates vary for the prepsoas and transpsoas approaches owing to the variable retroperitoneal anatomy encountered during surgical dissection. While the risks of a lasting motor deficit and transient sensory dis- turbances are higher for the transpsoas approach, there is a reciprocal reduction in the risks of major vascular injury and sympathetic nerve injury. These results can facilitate informed decision-making and tailored surgical planning regarding the choice of minimally invasive anterolateral access to the spine.

Posted on

Fivefold higher rate of pseudarthrosis with polyetheretherketone interbody device than with structural allograft used for 1-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 30:46–51, 2019

Common interbody graft options for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) include structural allograft and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). PEEK has gained popularity due to its radiolucency and its elastic modulus, which is similar to that of bone. The authors sought to compare the rates of pseudarthrosis, a lack of solid bone growth across the disc space, and the need for revision surgery with the use of grafts made of allogenic bone versus PEEK.

METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed 127 cases in which patients had undergone a 1-level ACDF followed by at least 1 year of radiographic follow-up. Data on age, sex, body mass index, tobacco use, pseudarthrosis, and the reoperation rate for pseudarthrosis were collected. These data were analyzed by performing a Pearson’s chi-square test.

RESULTS Of 127 patients, 56 had received PEEK implants and 71 had received allografts. Forty-six of the PEEK implants (82%) were stand-alone devices. There were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups with respect to patient age, sex, or body mass index. Twenty-nine (52%) of 56 patients with PEEK implants demonstrated radiographic evidence of pseudarthrosis, compared to 7 (10%) of 71 patients with structural allografts (p < 0.001, OR 9.82; 95% CI 3.836–25.139). Seven patients with PEEK implants required reoperation for pseudarthrosis, compared to 1 patient with an allograft (p = 0.01, OR 10.00; 95% CI 1.192–83.884). There was no significant difference in tobacco use between the PEEK and allograft groups (p = 0.586).

CONCLUSIONS The results of this study demonstrate that the use of PEEK devices in 1-level ACDF is associated with a significantly higher rate of radiographically demonstrated pseudarthrosis and need for revision surgery compared with the use of allografts. Surgeons should be aware of this when deciding on interbody graft options, and reimbursement policies should reflect these discrepancies.

Posted on

What Is the Fate of Pseudarthrosis Detected 1 Year After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?

Spine 2018;43:E23–E28

Objective. To investigate the consequences and appropriate management of pseudarthrosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Summary of Background Data. Pseudarthrosis is a frequent complication of ACDF and causes unsatisfactory results. Little is known about long-term prognosis of detecting pseudarthrosis 1 year after ACDF.

Methods. Eighty-nine patients with a minimum 2-year followup were included. ACDF surgery using allograft and plating was performed: single-level in 51 patients, two-level in 26 patients, and three-level in 12 patients. Presence of pseudarthrosis was evaluated 1 year postoperatively and then the nonunion segments were re-evaluated 2 years postoperatively. Demographic data were assessed to identify the risk factors associated with pseudarthrosis. A visual analogue scale for neck/arm pain and the Neck Disability Index were analyzed preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years postoperatively.

Results. Pseudarthrosis was detected in 29 patients (32.6%) 1 year postoperatively: 15of 51 patients after single-level surgery, 9 of 26 patients after two-level surgery, and 5 of 12 patients after three-level surgery. Only eight patients showed persistent nonunion at 2 years: 3 of 15 patients after single-level surgery, 3 of 9 after two-level surgery, and 2 of 5 after three-level surgery. The remaining 21 patients (72.4%) achieved bony fusion 2 years postoperatively without any intervention. Patients who underwent two-level or three-level ACDF had a significantly higher pseudarthrosis rate than those who underwent single-level ACDF, with odds ratios of 1.844 and 3.147, respectively. The improvements in visual analogue scale for neck pain and Neck Disability Index scores in the persistent nonunion group were significantly lower than those in the final union group at 2 years.

Conclusion. Patients with pseudarthrosis detected 1 year postoperatively may be observed without any intervention because approximately 70% of them will eventually fuse by the 2-year point. Early revision could, however, be considered if the pseudarthrosis is associated with considerable neck pain after multilevel ACDF.

Level of Evidence: 3

Posted on

Posterior Cervical Fusion Using Cervical Interfacet Spacers in Patients With Symptomatic Cervical Pseudarthrosis

Posterior Cervical Fusion Using Cervical Interfacet Spacers in Patients With Symptomatic Cervical Pseudarthrosis

Neurosurgery 78:661–668, 2016

Posterior cervical fusion with cervical interfacet spacer (CIS) is a novel allograft technology offering the potential to provide indirect neuroforaminal decompression while simultaneously enhancing fusion by placing the allograft in compression.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical and radiological outcomes after posterior cervical fusion with CIS in patients with symptomatic anterior cervical pseudarthroses.

METHODS: Medical records of patients who underwent posterior cervical fusion with CIS for symptomatic pseudarthrosis after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion were reviewed. Standardized outcome measures such as visual analog scale (VAS) score for neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and upright lateral cervical radiographs were reviewed.

RESULTS: There were 19 patients with symptomatic cervical pseudarthrosis. Preoperative symptoms included refractory neck or arm pain. The average follow-up was 20 months (range, 12-56 months). There was improvement in VAS score for neck pain (P < .004), radicular arm pain (P < .007), and NDI score (P < .06) after surgery, with 83%, 72%, and 67% of patients showing improvement in their VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain, and NDI scores, respectively. Fusion rate was high, with fusion occurring at all levels treated for pseudarthrosis. There was a small improvement in cervical lordosis (mean difference, 2 6 5.17; P = .09) and slight worsening of C2-7 sagittal vertical axis after surgery (mean difference, 1.89 6 7.87 mm; P = .43).

CONCLUSION: CIS provides an important fusion technique, allowing placement of an allograft in compression for posterior cervical fusion in patients with anterior cervical pseudarthroses. Although there was improvement in clinical outcome measures after surgery, placement of CIS had no clinically significant impact on cervical lordosis and C2-7 sagittal vertical axis.

Posted on

Two-level corpectomy versus three-level discectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Two-level corpectomy versus three-level discectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy

J Neurosurg Spine 23:280–289, 2015

In the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are effective decompressive techniques. It remains to be determined whether ACCF and ACDF offer equivalent outcomes for multilevel CSM. In this study, the authors compared perioperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes between 2-level ACCF and 3-level ACDF.

Methods Between 2006 and 2012, all patients at the authors’ hospital who underwent 2-level ACCF or 3-level ACDF performed by 1 of 2 surgeons were identified. Primary outcomes of interest were sagittal Cobb angle, adjacent-segment disease (ASD) requiring surgery, neck pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS), and Nurick score. Secondary outcomes of interest included estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, perioperative complications, and radiographic pseudarthrosis rate. Chi-square tests and 2-tailed Student t-tests were used to compare the 2 groups. A subgroup analysis of patients without posterior spinal fusion (PSF) was also performed.

Results Twenty patients underwent 2-level ACCF, and 35 patients underwent 3-level ACDF during a 6-year period. Preoperative Nurick scores were higher in the ACCF group (2.1 vs 1.1, p = 0.014), and more patients underwent PSF in the 2-level ACCF group compared with patients in the 3-level ACDF group (60.0% vs 17.1%, p = 0.001). Otherwise there were no significant differences in demographics, comorbidities, and baseline clinical parameters between the 2 groups. Two-level ACCF was associated with significantly higher EBL compared with 3-level ACDF for the anterior stage of surgery (382.2 ml vs 117.9 ml, p < 0.001). Two-level ACCF was also associated with a longer hospital stay compared with 3-level ACDF (7.2 days vs 4.9 days, p = 0.048), but a subgroup comparison of patients without PSF showed no significant difference in length of stay (3.1 days vs 4.4 days for 2-level ACCF vs 3-level ACDF, respectively; p = 0.267). Similarly, there was a trend toward more complications in the 2-level ACCF group (20.0%) than the 3-level ACDF group (5.7%; p = 0.102), but a subgroup analysis that excluded those who had second-stage PSF no longer showed the same trend (2-level ACCF, 0.0% vs 3-level ACDF, 3.4%; p = 0.594). There were no significant differences between the ACCF group and the ACDF group in terms of postoperative sagittal Cobb angle (7.2° vs 12.1°, p = 0.173), operative ASD (6.3% vs 3.6%, p = 0.682), and radiographic pseudarthrosis rate (6.3% vs 7.1%, p = 0.909). Both groups had similar improvement in mean VAS neck pain scores (3.4 vs 3.2 for ACCF vs ACDF, respectively; p = 0.860) and Nurick scores (0.8 vs 0.7, p = 0.925).

Conclusions Two-level ACCF was associated with greater EBL and longer hospital stays when patients underwent a second-stage PSF. However, the length of stay was similar when patients underwent anterior-only decompression with either 2-level ACCF or 3-level ACDF. Furthermore, perioperative complication rates were similar in the 2 groups when patients underwent anterior decompression without PSF. Both groups obtained similar postoperative cervical lordosis, operative ASD rates, radiographic pseudarthrosis rates, neurological improvement, and pain relief.

Proudly powered by WordPress