Background Pedicle screw and lamina hook (PSLH) technique is an effective and popular method for direct pars repair of lumbar spondylolysis. There is a lack of studies to explore factors that may influence the healing of spondylolysis after direct pars repair surgery. The present study aimed to investigate the factors associated with non-fusion after direct pars repair of lumbar spondylolysis with PSLH technique. Methods A total of 55 subjects (average age 21.1 ± 6.3 years, a total of 120 pars defects) diagnosed with symptomatic spondylolysis and underwent pars repair surgery with PSLH were followed up and their clinical data were analyzed. Subjects were divided into a non-fusion group and fusion group according to whether the pars defect had bony fusion at last follow-up assessed by CT. Radiographic data, data related to spondylolysis and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between groups. Results The mean follow-up time of the 55 patients was 24.8 ± 12.0 (12–64) months. Among the 120 pars defects, 101 defects were successfully fused and 19 were not fused according to CT. The fusion rate was 84.2%. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed the factors correlated with non-fusion after pars repair surgery: whether the spondylolysis segment was associated with spina bifida occulta (SBO) ( P = 0.001), stage of the defect ( P = 0.047), width of the defect ( P = 0.002), and disc degeneration ( P = 0.014). Conclusion Direct pars repair by PSHL is a reliable treatment for lumbar spondylolysis with a fusion rate of 84.2%. Association with SBO of the spondylolysis segment, a terminal stage of the defect, a wider defect gap, and grade III disc degeneration may be factors associated with non-fusion after direct pars repair of lumbar spondylolysis with PLSH. Non-fusion patients after pars repair appear to have worse clinical results compared to fusion patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: