MétaCan
← all works

Adjacent Segment Disease after Lumbar or Lumbosacral Fusion: Review of the Literature

2004· review· en· 1,303 citations· W2075821933 on OpenAlex· 10.1097/01.brs.0000137069.88904.03

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread
0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Review of the literature. OBJECTIVES: Review the definition, etiology, incidence, and risk factors associated with as well as potential treatment options. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The development of pathology at the mobile segment next to a lumbar or lumbosacral spinal fusion has been termed adjacent segment disease. Initially reported to occur rarely, it is now considered a potential late complication of spinal fusion that can necessitate further surgical intervention and adversely affect outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE literature search. RESULTS: The most common abnormal finding at the adjacent segment is disc degeneration. Biomechanical changes consisting of increased intradiscal pressure, increased facet loading, and increased mobility occur after fusion and have been implicated in causing adjacent segment disease. Progressive spinal degeneration with age is also thought to be a major contributor. From a radiographic standpoint, reported incidence during average postoperative follow-up observation ranging from 36 to 369 months varies substantially from 5.2 to 100%. Incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease is lower, however, ranging from 5.2 to 18.5% during 44.8 to 164 months of follow-up observation. The rate of symptomatic adjacent segment disease is higher in patients with transpedicular instrumentation (12.2-18.5%) compared with patients fused with other forms of instrumentation or with no instrumentation (5.2-5.6%). Potential risk factors include instrumentation, fusion length, sagittal malalignment, facet injury, age, and pre-existing degenerative changes. CONCLUSION: Biomechanical alterations likely play a primary role in causing adjacent segment disease. Radiographically apparent, asymptomatic adjacent segment disease is common but does not correlate with functional outcomes. Potentially modifiable risk factors for the development of adjacent segment disease include fusion without instrumentation, protecting the facet joint of the adjacent segment during placement of pedicle screws,fusion length, and sagittal balance. Surgical management, when indicated, consists of decompression of neural elements and extension of fusion. Outcomes after surgery, however, are modest.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

The record

Venue
Spine
Topic
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Field
Medicine
Canadian institutions
Discovery Air (Canada)
Funders
Keywords
MedicineLumbosacral jointLumbarSagittal planeAsymptomaticDegenerative disc diseaseSpinal fusionSurgeryRadiographyRadiology
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes