SpringerLink
Log in

‘Higher the grade-smaller the pedicle’: a study of pedicle dimensional variations in 100 cases of high grade lytic spondylolisthesis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To measure the pedicle dimensions in high grade lytic spondylolisthesis (HGL) and to classify them, which helps the spine surgeon in proper selection of pedicle screws.

Methods

A study of CT scans in 100 consecutive patients between Jan 2017 and April 2021 diagnosed as single-level HGL on standing radiographs. Pedicle height (PH), Pedicle width (PW), Differential pedicle height (DPH), Screw length (SL) and Transverse pedicle angle (TPA) were measured and analyzed. PH and PW were classified into four grades as—grade A less than 5.0 mm, grade B between 5.0 and 6.0 mm, grade C between 6.0 and 7.0 mm, and grade D above 7.0 mm.

Results

5 males and 95 females with mean age of 49.1 years. PH in 44% lytic vertebra were grade A, B (less than 6 mm) and the rest 56% had grade C, D (greater than 6 mm). PH averaged 6.6 mm in grade 3 HGL, 5.61 mm in grade 4 HGL. Change in PW, SL and TPA was not statistically significant with regards to grade or level of listhesis. A total of 37 cases were noted to have DPH (25 cases had a difference < 2 mm and 12 had a difference > 2 mm).

Conclusion

44% of the PH in lytic vertebra was grade A and B (less than 6 mm) that stresses the importance of pre-op CT assessment and planning the appropriate screw dimensions. Change in PH was statistically significant with regards to the grade of listhesis (P-value < 0.01). Differential pedicle height also need to be looked for.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig.1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kalichman L, Kim DH, Li L et al (2009) Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: prevalence and association with low back pain in the adult community-based population. Spine 34(2):199–205

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Gaines RW (2005) L5 vertebrectomy for the surgical treatment of spondyloptosis: thirty cases in 25 years. Spine 30(Suppl 6):S66–S70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Min K, Liebscher T, Rothenfluh D (2012) Sacral dome resection and single-stage posterior reduction in the treatment of high-grade high dysplastic spondylolisthesis in adolescents and young adults. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 6):S785–S791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bouyer B, Bachy M, Courvoisier A et al (2014) High-grade lumbosacral spondylolisthesis reduction and fusion in children using trans sacral rod fixation. Childs Nerv Syst 30(3):505–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE (1990) Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 15:11–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weinstein JN, Spratt KF, Spengler D et al (1998) Spinal pedicle fixation: reliability and validity of roentgenograms based assessment and surgical factors on successful screw placement. Spine 13:1012–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi HJ, Park JY, Chin DK (2014) Anatomical parameters of a fifth lumbar vertebra in L5–S1 spondylolytic spondylolisthesis from a surgical point of view. Eur Spine J 23(9):1896–1902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bajwa NS, Toy JO, Ahn NU (2012) L5 pedicle length is increased in subjects with spondylolysis: an anatomic study of 1072 cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):3202–3206

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ergun T, Sahin MS, Lakadamyali H (2011) Evaluation of the relationship between L5–S1 spondylolysis and isthmic spondyl- olisthesis and lumbosacral-pelvic morphology by imaging via 2- and 3-dimensional reformatted computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:9–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Masharawi Y (2012) Lumbar shape characterization of the neural arch and vertebral body in spondylolysis: a comparative skeletal study. Clin Anat 25:224–230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mehta JS, Kochhar S, Harding IJ (2012) A slip above a slip: retrolisthesis of the motion segment above a spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 21:2128–2133

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Rankine JJ, Dickson RA (2010) Unilateral spondylolysis and the presence of facet joint tropism. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)s 35:E1111–E1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Krag MH, Weaver DL, Beynnon BD (1988) Morphometry of the thoracic and lumbar spine-related to transpedicular screw placement for surgical spinal fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:27–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mitra SR, Datir SP, Jadhav SO (2002) Morphometric study of the lumbar pedicle in the Indian population as related to pedicular screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:453–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bernard TN, Seibert CE (1992) Pedicle diameter determined by computed tomography. Its relevance to pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:S160–S163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chadha M, Balain B, Maini L (2003) Pedicle morphology of the lower thoracic, lumbar, and S1 vertebrae: an Indian perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:744–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Widell EH et al (1986) A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. Clin Orthop 203:99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V (1993) Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation. A selected survey of ABS members. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:2231–2238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Makino T, Kaito T, Fujiwara H (2012) Analysis of lumbar pedicle morphology in degenerative spines using multiplanar reconstruction computed tomography: what can be the reliable index for optimal pedicle screw diameter? Eur Spine J 21(8):1516–1521

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Okuda S, Miyauchi A, Oda T et al (2006) Surgical complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with total facetectomy in 251 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 4:304–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T et al (1999) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 70:329–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Freeman BJ, Licina P, Mehdian SH (2000) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with instrumented postero-lateral fusion: 5-year results in 60 patients. Eur Spine J9:42–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jutte PC, Castelein RM (2002) Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations. Eur Spine J 11:594–598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ et al (1997) Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and postero-lateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:210–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Belfi LM, Ortiz AO, Katz DS (2006) Computed tomography evaluation of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in asymptomatic patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:E907–E910

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hajek PC, Baker LL, Goobar JE et al (1987) Focal fat deposition in axial bone marrow: MR characteristics. Radiology 162:245–249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. de Roos A, Kressel H, Spitzer C (1987) MR imaging of marrow changes adjacent to end plates in degenerative lumbar disk disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 149:531–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Sources of support - Study has been sponsored by AO spine international.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stavya Spine Hospital and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, India

    Devanand Degulmadi, Bharat Dave, Ajay Krishnan, Ravi Ranjan Rai, Shivanand Mayi & Chaitanya Reddy Chintam

Authors
  1. Devanand Degulmadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bharat Dave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ajay Krishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ravi Ranjan Rai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shivanand Mayi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chaitanya Reddy Chintam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Devanand Degulmadi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have not disclosed any conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Degulmadi, D., Dave, B., Krishnan, A. et al. ‘Higher the grade-smaller the pedicle’: a study of pedicle dimensional variations in 100 cases of high grade lytic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 32, 455–461 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07277-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07277-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation