» Articles » PMID: 25627068

Topping-off Technique Prevents Aggravation of Degeneration of Adjacent Segment Fusion Revealed by Retrospective and Finite Element Biomechanical Analysis

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2015 Jan 29
PMID 25627068
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Topping-off technique in preventing the aggravation of degeneration caused by adjacent segment fusion.

Methods: Clinical parameters of patients who underwent L5-S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion + interspinous process at L4-L5 (PLIF + ISP) with the Wallis system (Topping-off group) were compared retrospectively with those of patients who underwent solely PLIF. Pre- and post-operative x-ray measurements, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores were assessed in all subjects. Normal L1-S1 lumbosacral finite element models were established in accordance with the two types of surgery in our study, respectively. Virtual loading was added to assess the motility, disc pressure, and facet joint stress of L4-L5.

Results: There were 22 and 23 valid cases included in the Topping-off and PLIF groups. No degeneration was observed in either group. Both VAS and JOA scores improved significantly post-operatively (P < 0.01). The intervertebral angle and lumbar lordosis of L4-L5 were both significantly increased (t = -2.89 and -2.68, P < 0.05 in the Topping-off group and t = -2.25 and -2.15, P < 0.05 in the PLIF group). In the Topping-off group, x-ray in dynamic position showed no significant difference in the angulation or distance of the anterior movement of the L4-L5 segment. The angle of hyper-extension and distance of the posterior movement of L4 were significantly decreased. In the PLIF group, both hyper-flexion and hyper-extension and posterior movement were increased significantly. In finite element analysis, displacement of the L4 vertebral body, pressure of the annulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus, and stress of the bilateral facet joint were less in the Topping-off group under loads of anterior flexion and posterior extension. Facet joint stress on the left side of the L4-L5 segment was also less in the Topping-off group under left flexion loads.

Conclusion: Short-term efficacy and safety between Topping-off and PLIF were similar, whilst the Topping-off technique could restrict the hyper-extension movement of adjacent segments, prevent back and forth movement of proximal vertebrae, and decrease loads of intervertebral disc and facet joints.

Citing Articles

Effectiveness of Interspinous Process Devices in Managing Adjacent Segment Degeneration Following Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mangal H, Felzensztein Recher D, Shafafy R, Itshayek E J Clin Med. 2024; 13(17).

PMID: 39274374 PMC: 11395794. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13175160.


Dynamic Rod Constructs as the Preventive Strategy against Adjacent Segment Disease in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Disorders: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study.

Saghebdous S, Zare R, Chaurasia B, Vakilzadeh M, Yousefi O, Boustani M Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2023; 11(6):404-413.

PMID: 37404298 PMC: 10314982. DOI: 10.22038/ABJS.2022.68498.3239.


Comparison of long-term outcomes of spinal fusion surgeries supplemented with "topping-off" implants in lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Chiou K, Chiu Y, Lee C, Huang T, Lai Y, Yang C N Am Spine Soc J. 2022; 12:100177.

PMID: 36394053 PMC: 9650073. DOI: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100177.


Surgical risk factors associated with the development of adjacent segment pathology in the lumbar spine.

Pinto E, Teixeira A, Frada R, Atilano P, Miranda A EFORT Open Rev. 2021; 6(10):966-972.

PMID: 34760295 PMC: 8559561. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210050.


Dynamic Fixation Techniques for the Prevention of Adjacent Segment Disease: A Retrospective Controlled Study.

Fuster S, Martinez-Anda J, Castillo-Rivera S, Vargas-Reveron C, Tornero E Asian Spine J. 2021; 16(3):401-410.

PMID: 34130381 PMC: 9260399. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2020.0585.


References
1.
Wilke H, Drumm J, Haussler K, Mack C, Steudel W, Kettler A . Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17(8):1049-56. PMC: 2518774. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-008-0657-2. View

2.
Korovessis P, Repantis T, Zacharatos S, Zafiropoulos A . Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion?. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(6):830-40. PMC: 2899653. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0976-y. View

3.
Liu H, Zhou J, Wang B, Wang H, Jin Z, Zhu Z . Comparison of Topping-off and posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery in lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2012; 125(22):3942-6. View

4.
Lu S, Wang Z, Ni X, Wang L . [Establishment and biomechanical analysis of three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model of three-pieces segment arch]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2013; 31(1):74-9. View

5.
Heth J, Hitchon P, Goel V, Rogge T, Drake J, Torner J . A biomechanical comparison between anterior and transverse interbody fusion cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(12):E261-7. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200106150-00012. View