Skip to main content
  • The Impact of Superior Segment Facet Joint Violation During Instrumented Lumbar Fusion

    Final Number:

    Jay M Levin BA; Vincent J Alentado BS; Andrew Torre Healy MD; Michael P. Steinmetz MD; Edward C. Benzel MD; Thomas E. Mroz MD

    Study Design:

    Subject Category:

    Meeting: Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves 2016 Annual Meeting

    Introduction: Although facet joint violation (FJV) during lumbar fusion has been recognized as a potential risk factor for adjacent segment disease, there is inconclusive data clarifying the true clinical implications of FJV. In the current study, we seek to illuminate the impact of superior segment FJV on reoperation rate and quality of life (QOL).

    Methods: Patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery between 2009 and 2013 with postoperative computed tomography imaging were included. Patients were placed in the FJV group if either of the superior segment facet joints were compromised, while patients with preserved facet joints were placed in the control group. Demographic, perioperative, and one-year QOL data were collected for both the FJV and control groups.

    Results: Of the 241 patients included, 112 patients were found to have FJV and the remaining 129 patients were placed in the control group. One year following lumbar fusion, reoperation rates were similar between the FJV and control groups (p=0.53). At two-year follow-up, the reoperation rate in the FJV group was significantly higher than in the control group (17.0% and 7.8%, respectively; p=0.02). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed FJV to be the only independent predictor of reoperation two years postoperatively (p=0.03), with an odds ratio of 2.53 (95% CI: 1.11-6.15). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in regards to 1-year postoperative Pain Disability Questionnaire, EuroQOL 5 Dimensions, or Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores (p=0.97, p=0.24, and p=0.79, respectively).

    Conclusions: This study is the first quantification of the impact of facet joint violation on reoperation rate and quality of life. We found that FJV does not lead to any change in reoperation rate or quality of life scores within one year following lumbar fusion surgery. However, FJV was found to be an independent predictor of reoperation two years postoperatively.

    Patient Care: This study supports placement of pedicle screws with a more inferolateral starting point so to avoid compromising the superior-level facet joint during instrumented lumbar fusion. This could lower the rate of reoperation in patients undergoing lumbar fusion, thereby improving clinical outcomes.

    Learning Objectives: By the conclusion of this session, participants should: 1) Appreciate the negative impact facet joint violation has on patient outcomes, 2) Identify the most effective pedicle screw insertion point to avoid facet joint compromise.

    References: 1. Weinstein, James N., Jon D. Lurie, Tor D. Tosteson, Wenyan Zhao, Emily A. Blood, Anna N. A. Tosteson, Nancy Birkmeyer, et al. “Surgical Compared with Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. Four-Year Results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) Randomized and Observational Cohorts.” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 91, no. 6 (June 2009): 1295–1304. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00913. 2. Kim HJ, Chun HJ, Kang KT, et al. The biomechanical effect of pedicle screws’ insertion angle and position on the superior adjacent segment in 1 segment lumbar fusion. Spine 2012;37:1637–44. 3. Ha KY, Schendel MJ, Lewis JL, Ogilvie JW (1993) Effect of immobilization and configuration on lumbar adjacent-segment biomechanics. J Spinal Disord 6:99–105 4. Leone A, Guglielmi G, Cassar-Pullicino VN, et al. Lumbar intervertebral instability: a review. Radiology 2007;245:62–77. 5. Ha KY, Son JM, Im JH, et al. Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after surgical correction of degenerative scoliosis. ?Indian J Orthop 2013;47:346–51. 6. Levin DA, Hale J, Bendo JA. Adjacent segment degeneration following spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. Bull NYU Hosp ?Jt Dis 2007;65:29–36. 7. He B, Yan L, Guo H, Liu T, Wang X, Hao D. The Difference in Superior Adjacent Segment Pathology After Lumbar Posterolateral Fusion by Using 2 Different Pedicle Screw Insertion Techniques in 9-Year Minimum Follow-up. Spine 2014;39:1093-1098. 8. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, et al. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 2004;29:1938–44. 9. Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S. Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord 1995;8:464–73 10. Wiltse LL, Radecki SE, Biel HM, et al. Comparative study of the incidence and severity of degenerative change in the transition zones after instrumented versus noninstrumented fusions of the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord 1999; 12:27–33. 11. Shah RR, Mohammed S, Saifuddin A, Taylor BA. Radiologic evaluation of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation following transpedicular instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine 2003;28: 272–5. 12. Moshirfar A, Jenis LG, Spector LR, et al. Computed tomography evaluation of superior-segment facet-joint violation after pedicle instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a midline surgical approach. Spine 2006;31:2624–9. 13. Knox JB, Dai JM, Orchowski JR. Superior segment facet joint violation and cortical violation after minimally invasive pedicle screw placement. The Spine Journal 2011;11:213-217. 14. Yson SC, Sembrano JN, Sanders PC, et al. Comparison of Cranial Facet Joint Violation Rates Between Open and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement Using Intraoperative 3-D CT Computer Navigation. 15. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, et al. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(5):598-604. doi:10.3171/2010.12.SPINE10472. 16. Wilson H. Minimum Clinical Important Differences of Health Outcomes in a Chronic Pain Population: Are They Predictive of Poor Outcomes? 2008. 17. DRG Expert. Eden Prairie, Minnesota: Ingenix; 2012 18. Etebar S, Cahill DW. Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg 1999;90:163–9. 19. Martin, Brook I., Sohail K. Mirza, Bryan A. Comstock, Darryl T. Gray, William Kreuter, and Richard A. Deyo. “Reoperation Rates Following Lumbar Spine Surgery and the Influence of Spinal Fusion Procedures.” Spine 32, no. 3 (February 1, 2007): 382–87. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000254104.55716.46. 20. Chen, Zhiming, Jie Zhao, Hao Xu, Aigang Liu, Jiandong Yuan, and Cong Wang. “Technical Factors Related to the Incidence of Adjacent Superior Segment Facet Joint Violation after Transpedicular Instrumentation in the Lumbar Spine.” European Spine Journal: Official Publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society 17, no. 11 (November 2008): 1476–80. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0776-9. 21. Park, Yung, Joong Won Ha, Yun Tae Lee, and Na Young Sung. “Cranial Facet Joint Violations by Percutaneously Placed Pedicle Screws Adjacent to a Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Fusion.” The Spine Journal: Official Journal of the North American Spine Society 11, no. 4 (April 2011): 295–302. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.02.007. 22. Cardoso, Mario J., Anton E. Dmitriev, Melvin Helgeson, Ronald A. Lehman, Timothy R. Kuklo, and Michael K. Rosner. “Does Superior-Segment Facet Violation or Laminectomy Destabilize the Adjacent Level in Lumbar Transpedicular Fixation? An in Vitro Human Cadaveric Assessment.” Spine 33, no. 26 (December 15, 2008): 2868–73. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818c63d3. 23. Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Theodore BR: The pain disability questionnaire: relationship to one-year functional and psychosocial rehabilitation outcomes. J Occup Rehabil 16:75– 94, 2006 24. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB: The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 16:606–613, 2001 25. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB: Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA 282:1737–1744, 1999 26. Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Kroenke K, Hornyak R, McMurray J: Validity and utility of the PRIME-MD patient health questionnaire in assessment of 3000 obstetric-gynecologic patients: the PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire Obstetrics-Gynecology Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:759–769, 2000 27. Badia X, Diaz-Prieto A, Gorriz MT, Herdman M, Torrado H, Farrero E, et al: Using the EuroQol-5D to measure changes in quality of life 12 months after discharge from an intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 27:1901–1907, 2001 28. Jansson KA, Németh G, Granath F, Jönsson B, Blomqvist P: Health-related quality of life in patients before and after surgery for a herniated lumbar disc. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:959–964, 2005 29. Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Ergo A, Szava-Kovats G: Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 13:421–433, 1998 30. Kepler CK, Wilkinson SM, Radcliff KE, Vaccaro AR, Anderson DG, Hilibrand AS, et al: Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review. Spine J 12:676–690, 2012

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy