Home›The Treatise›Chapters›Chapter 38
Tratado de Cirurgia da Coluna Vertebral
SECTION 4 • Spinal Deformities
Chapter38

Spondylolisthesis in Children and Adolescents

Vancouver: Andujar ALF, Grandini RS, Arjona HD📖 Pages: 503-518
Full reading of this chapter is available exclusively in the printed edition of the Treatise.
Sec. 4Spinal Deformities
Cap. 38Clinical Chapter
3authors
Português
Español
English
Referênciasscientific citations
📑

Chapter Summary

• Context: Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in the pediatric population represent lumbosacral junction disorders ranging clinically from asymptomatic incidental radiographic findings to high-grade deformities accompanied by severe sagittal imbalance, back pain, radiculopathy, and marked functional disability. Spondylolysis denotes a structural osseous defect in the pars interarticularis, whereas spondylolisthesis defines the actual anterior vertebral slippage. Pathophysiology is multifactorial, involving repetitive mechanical stress, local vertebral dysplastic anatomy, spinopelvic morphology, genetic predisposition, and athletic activities involving hyperextension and rotation. Most low-grade forms follow a benign clinical course, but the risk of progressive slippage escalates during rapid skeletal growth spurts and in dysplastic spinopelvic configurations. The chapter underscores that contemporary evaluation must transcend the simple percentage of vertebral slippage: lumbosacral kyphosis, pelvic orientation, and global sagittal balance dictate clinical severity and are central to choosing between observation, in situ fusion, and surgical reduction.
• Chapter Objective: To present the anatomical, pathophysiological, clinical, and radiographic foundations of pediatric spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. The reader will recognize distinct disease patterns, select appropriate imaging modalities, master the Meyerding and Spinal Deformity Study Group (SDSG) classification systems, evaluate spinopelvic balance and lumbosacral kyphosis, and understand the principles guiding conservative therapy, direct pars repair, in situ fusion, reduction, and the prevention of neurological complications.
• Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis as growth-related disordersThe chapter interprets spondylolysis as a stress fatigue fracture of the pars interarticularis occurring in individuals predisposed by genetic and morphologic factors. Bipedal posture, lumbar lordosis, and athletic activities combining hyperextension and rotation concentrate mechanical stress on the L5-S1 junction. High pelvic incidence and sagittal facet orientation exacerbate this biomechanical vulnerability. Progressive vertebral slippage occurs predominantly during pediatric growth spurts and becomes uncommon following skeletal maturity. Consequently, biological age and remaining growth potential must be evaluated even in asymptomatic patients.
• Clinical presentation and postural compensationLow-grade cases are frequently asymptomatic. When pain occurs, it typically presents as activity-related low back pain relieved by rest. High-grade slippage often associates with radicular pain, neurogenic claudication, and, rarely, sphincter dysfunction. As lumbosacral kyphosis worsens, characteristic postural compensations develop: hyperlordosis, pelvic retroversion, hip/knee flexion, and a crouched gait. Figure 1 demonstrates the Phalen-Dickson sign, the clinical hallmark of this severe sagittal imbalance. Hamstring tightness, illustrated in Figure 2, is another classic physical finding.
• Imaging: selecting the right modality for each questionStanding full-spine radiographs represent the essential foundation to quantify slippage, measure lumbosacral kyphosis, and assess global spinopelvic balance. The chapter discourages routine oblique radiographs due to added radiation without significant clinical gain. Computed tomography (CT) details pars bony architecture and dysplastic anatomy in complex cases (Figure 4). SPECT/CT aids in distinguishing acute healing stress lesions from chronic pseudarthrosis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) avoids ionizing radiation, identifies early marrow bone stress edema, and evaluates neural compression (Figure 3).
• Classifying beyond the percentage of slippageThe Meyerding classification (Figure 5) provides a simple grading of translational slip percentage (Grades I to V). Wiltse-Newman-Macnab and Marchetti-Bartolozzi add etiological and dysplastic insight. The chapter assigns primary clinical significance to the SDSG classification (Figures 7 and 8), which integrates slip grade, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and global sagittal balance. Lumbosacral kyphosis (slip angle, Dubousset lumbosacral angle in Figure 6) emerges as the pivotal parameter governing functional severity.
• Treatment guided by symptoms, progression risk, and balanceMost pediatric low-grade lesions are successfully managed conservatively with activity modification, core physical therapy, temporary bracing, and serial radiographic follow-up through skeletal maturity. Surgery is reserved for intractable pain, documented progression, neurological deficits, or high-grade deformities. Options include direct pars repair (e.g., Buck, Scott, or Morscher techniques) in select young patients, in situ fusion, and surgical reduction with spinopelvic reconstruction. The authors emphasize that in high-grade dysplastic cases, correcting lumbosacral kyphosis and restoring global spinopelvic balance takes precedence over achieving anatomic translational reduction.
• Clinical Application: In clinical practice, an incidental pars defect identified during back pain workup must not be reflexively assumed to be the pain generator without rigorous clinical correlation. In growing children, even mildly symptomatic spondylolisthesis requires scheduled radiographic surveillance if dysplastic anatomy or high pelvic incidence indicates elevated progression risk. Full-spine standing radiographs are essential to capture how spine, pelvis, and lower extremities interact. The SDSG classification organizes patients by slip grade and spinopelvic balance (balanced vs unbalanced pelvis/spine), guiding appropriate treatment pathways. Low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis starts with conservative measures (activity modification, hamstring stretching, core stabilization). When surgery is indicated, direct pars repair preserves motion in young patients with intact L5-S1 discs. In high-grade slips, surgical strategy centers on restoring sagittal balance and correcting lumbosacral kyphosis. Aggressive translational reduction carries a high risk of L5 nerve root stretch neuropraxia; the priority is correcting regional kyphosis (slip angle), decompressing L5 roots, and achieving solid circumferential spinopelvic fusion (L4-S1/pelvis) with intraoperative neuromonitoring.
🏷️

Keywords

Preferred DeCS/MeSH Descriptors:
SpondylolisthesisSpondylolysisLumbar VertebraeChildRadiographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedMagnetic Resonance ImagingSpinal Fusion
⭐

Why this chapter matters

Two adolescent patients with identical 50% slips can exhibit completely different biomechanics and prognoses. One may have a balanced pelvis and normal posture, while the other suffers from severe lumbosacral kyphosis, retroverted pelvis, crouched gait, and intractable L5 radiculopathy. This chapter illustrates the transition from 2D slip measurement to modern global spinopelvic assessment. This perspective allows clinicians to monitor high-risk patients proactively, avoid unnecessary surgery in benign low-grade cases, and safely execute balanced reconstructions in high-grade deformities.

“Pediatric spondylolisthesis must be evaluated as a local, regional, and global spinal deformity. Slip percentage is informative, but does not independently determine prognosis or treatment. Remaining growth, lumbosacral kyphosis, pelvic tilt, global sagittal balance, pain, and neurological status must be synthesized. Most low-grade cases thrive with conservative care; in high-grade deformities, surgical reconstruction must prioritize spinopelvic balance and neural protection over anatomic translation reduction.”
✨

Chapter Highlights

🌐
Card 1 — Core Concept
Slip Percentage Does Not Tell the Whole Story

Vertebral translation percentage captures only one dimension. Lumbosacral kyphosis, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and global sagittal balance differentiate patients with identical slip grades, explaining why their clinical symptoms and surgical needs differ radically.

🩺
Card 2 — Clinical Decision
Restore Spinopelvic Balance, Not Pure Translation

In high-grade slips, the primary goal of reconstruction is correcting lumbosacral kyphosis, un-retroverting the pelvis, and restoring global sagittal alignment. Anatomic translational reduction is secondary and should never supersede neurological safety.

📐
Card 3 — Pearl / Alert
Protect the L5 Nerve Root

The L5 root is exceptionally vulnerable to stretch traction injury during reduction maneuvers. Thorough foraminal decompression, deliberate kyphosis correction over translational pulling, and continuous intraoperative neuromonitoring are essential to prevent postoperative foot drop.

📑

How to Cite this Chapter (Vancouver Format)

Official bibliographic indexing and citation guidelines
📖 Pages: 503-518Vancouver Style
Authors (Vancouver):Andujar ALF, Grandini RS, Arjona HD

Andujar ALF, Grandini RS, Arjona HD. Espondilolistese na criança. In: Pudles E, Defino H, Risso M, editors. Tratado de Cirurgia da Coluna Vertebral (Treatise of Spine Surgery). 1st ed. Rio de Janeiro: Dilivros Editora; 2026. p. 503-518.

ISBN: 978-85-8053-292-0 • 1.ª Edição • Dilivros Editora
📚

Bibliographic References

1. Herbiniaux G. Traité sur divers accouchemens laborieux et sur les polypes de la matrice... 1782.
2. Lonstein JE. Spondylolisthesis in children. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(24):2640.
3. Lan Z, Yan J, Yang Y, Xu Q, Jin Q. A review of the main classifications of lumbar spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg. 2023;171:94-102.
4. Fredrickson BE, Baker D, McHolick WJ, Yuan HA, Lubicky JP. The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(5):699-707.
5. Helenius I, Virkki E, Toomela T, Studer D, Gehrchen M, Ahonen M. An Acta Orthopaedica educational article: treatment of pediatric spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Acta Orthop. 2025;96:80-6.
6. Wiltse LL, Newman PH, Macnab I. Classification of spondylolisis and spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(117):23-9.
7. Roche MB, Rowe GG. The incidence of separate neural arch and coincident bone variations; a summary. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1952;34-A(2):491-4.
8. Logroscino G, Mazza O, Aulisa G, Pitta L, Pola E, Aulisa L. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in the pediatric and adolescent population. Childs Nerv Syst. 2001;17(11):644-55.
9. Choi JH, Ochoa JK, Lubinus A, Timon S, Lee YP, Bhatia NN. Management of lumbar spondylolysis in the adolescent athlete: a review of over 200 cases. Spine J. 2022;22(10):1628-33.
10. Finkel RA, Narendran N, Farivar D, Nilssen P, Metzger MF, Skaggs DL, et al. Lumbosacral anatomy is unique in pediatric spondylolysis. Spine Deform. 2025;13(4):1197-204.
11. Stewart TD. The age incidence of neural-arch defects in Alaskan natives, considered from the standpoint of etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1953;35-A:937-50.
12. Wiltse LL. The etiology of spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1962;44-A:539-60.
13. Cyron BM, Hutton WC. Variations in the amount and distribution of cortical bone across the partes interarticulares of L5. A predisposing factor in spondylolysis? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1979;4(2):163-7.
14. Rosenberg NJ, Bargar WL, Friedman B. The incidence of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in nonambulatory patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981;6(1):35-8.
15. Ogilvie JW, Sherman J. Spondylolysis in Scheuermann’s disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;12(3):251-3.
16. Simper LB. Spondylolysis in Eskimo skeletons. Acta Orthop Scand. 1986;57(1):78-80.
17. Miki T, Tamura T, Senzoku F, Kotani H, Hara T, Masuda T. Congenital laminar defect of the upper lumbar spine associated with pars defect. A report of eleven cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(3):353-5.
18. Albanese M, Pizzutillo PD. Family study of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. J Pediatr Orthop. 1982;2(5):496-9.
19. Wynne-Davies R, Scott JH. Inheritance and spondylolisthesis: a radiographic family survey. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1979;61-B(3):301-5.
20. Kong Q, Wei B, Niu S, Liao J, Zu Y, Shan T. Age, pelvic incidence, facet joint angle and pedicle-facet angle as correlative factors for isthmic spondylolisthesis: a retrospective case control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023;24(1):497.
21. Lemoine T, Fournier J, Odent T, Sembély-Taveau C, Merenda P, Sirinelli D, et al. The prevalence of lumbar spondylolysis in young children: a retrospective analysis using CT. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(5):1067-72.
22. Kriz PK, Kobelski GP, Kriz JP, Willwerth SB, Hunt DL, Evangelista PT, et al. Pars interarticularis and pedicle stress injuries in young athletes with low back pain: a retrospective cohort study of 902 patients evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med. 2024;52(10):2639-45.
23. Beutler WJ, Fredrickson BE, Murtland A, Sweeney CA, Grant WD, Baker D. The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: 45-year follow-up evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(10):1027-35.
24. Millson HB, Gray J, Stretch RA, Lambert MI. Dissociation between back pain and bone stress reaction as measured by CT scan in young cricket fast bowlers. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38(5):586-91.
25. Feldman DS, Straight JJ, Badra MI, Mohaideen A, Madan SS. Evaluation of an algorithmic approach to pediatric back pain. J Pediatr Orthop. 2006;26(3):353-7.
26. El Rassi G, Takemitsu M, Woratanarat P, Shah SA. Lumbar spondylolysis in pediatric and adolescent soccer players. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(11):1688-93.
27. Danielson BI, Frennered AK, Irstam LK. Radiologic progression of isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis in young patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(4):422-5.
28. Nedelea DG, Vulpe DE, Gherghiceanu F, Capitanu BS, Dragosloveanu S, Stoica IC. Surgical and non-surgical management of spondylolisthesis: a comprehensive review. J Med Life. 2025;18(3):196-207.
29. Hu SS, Tribus CB, Diab M, Ghanayem AJ. Spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):656-71.
30. Phalen GS, Dickson JA. Spondylolisthesis and tight hamstrings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1961;43-A(4):505-12.
31. Tsirikos AI, Garrido EG. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(6):751-9.
32. Expósito Jiménez D, Álvarez de Sierra Garcia B. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis and classification of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis-a narrative review. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2024;14(11):7891-907.
33. Meyerding HS. Spondylolisthesis. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1932;54:371-7.
34. Cetik RM, Latalski M, Yazici M. Management of low back pain accompanying sagittal plane pathologies in children: spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis and Scheuermann’s disease. J Child Orthop. 2023;17(6):535-47.
35. Ledonio CGT, Burton DC, Crawford CH 3rd, Bess RS, Buchowski JM, Hu SS, et al. Current evidence regarding diagnostic imaging methods for pediatric lumbar spondylolysis: a report from the Scoliosis Research Society Evidence-Based Medicine Committee. Spine Deform. 2017;5(2):97-101.
36. Trout AT, Sharp SE, Anton CG, Gelfand MJ, Mehlman CT. Spondylolysis and beyond: value of SPECT/CT in evaluation of low back pain in children and young adults. Radiographics. 2015;35(3):819-34.
37. Wu HH, Brown K, Flores M, Cazzulino A, Swarup I. Diagnosis and management of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in children. JBJS Rev. 2022;10(3).
38. Rush JK, Astur N, Scott S, Kelly DM, Sawyer JR, Warner WC Jr. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of spondylolysis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015;35(3):271-5.
39. Mac-Thiong JM, Labelle H, Parent S, Poitras B, Jodoin A, Ouellet J, et al. Assessment of sacral doming in lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(17):1888-95.
40. Batra S, Garg B. Classification of spondylolisthesis. Ind Spine J. 2021;4(1):10-7.
41. Boxall D, Bradford DS, Winter RB, Moe JH. Management of severe spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(4):479-95.
42. Antoniades SB, Hammerberg KW, DeWald RL. Sagittal plane configuration of the sacrum in spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(9):1085-91.
43. Dubousset J. Treatment of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;(337):77-85.
44. Marchetti P, Bartolozzi P. Classification of spondylolisthesis as a guideline for treatment. In: Bridwell KH, DeWald RL, editors. The Textbook of Spinal Surgery. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. p. 1211-54.
45. Daher M, Rezk A, Baroudi M, Balmaceno-Criss M, Gregorczyk JG, McDermott JR, et al. Lumbar spondylolisthesis grading: current standards and important factors to consider for management. World Neurosurg. 2024;190:311-7.
46. Hresko MT, Labelle H, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E. Classification of high-grade spondylolistheses based on pelvic version and spine balance: possible rationale for reduction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(20):2208-13.
47. Labelle H, Mac-Thiong JM, Roussouly P. Spino-pelvic sagittal balance of spondylolisthesis: a review and classification. Eur Spine J. 2011;20 Suppl 5:S641-6.
48. Dionne A, Mac-Thiong JM, Parent S, Shen J, Joncas J, Barchi S, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of gradual reduction and circumferential fusion of high-grade spondylolisthesis in adolescents: a prospective cohort study of 29 young patients. Spine Deform. 2024;12(5):1411-20.
49. Macagno A, Buchowski J, Luhmann S, Reid K, Lenke L, O’Brien M. High-grade spondylolisthesis. In: Mummaneni PV, Lenke LG, Haid RW Jr, editors. Spinal Deformity: A Guide to Surgical Planning and Management. Quality Medical Publishing; 2008. p. 591-646.
50. Frennered AK, Danielson BI, Nachemson AL. Natural history of symptomatic isthmic low-grade spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents: a seven-year follow-up study. J Pediatr Orthop. 1991;11(2):209-13.
51. Elias E, Daoud A, Elias C, Chiu RG, Sanchez JM, Nasser Z. Historical evolution, management, and outcome of surgical treatment for high-grade spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2025;42(6):784-96.
52. Shufflebarger HL, Geck MJ. High-grade isthmic dysplastic spondylolisthesis: monosegmental surgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(6 Suppl):S42-8.
53. Nilssen PK, Narendran N, Finkel RA, Illingworth KD, Skaggs DL. Spondylolisthesis in young patients in a large national cohort: reoperation rate depends on surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2024 Oct 31.
54. Harroud A, Labelle H, Joncas J, Mac-Thiong JM. Global sagittal alignment and health-related quality of life in lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(4):849-56.
55. Koucheki R, Rocos B, Gandhi R, Lewis SJ, Lebel DE. Surgical management of high-grade paediatric spondylolisthesis: meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2023;32(2):436-46.
56. Takeda K, Suzuki S, Ozaki M, Takahashi Y, Tsuji O, Nagoshi N, et al. Influence of slippage reduction and correction of lumbosacral kyphosis by single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion on spinal alignment in patients with dysplastic spondylolisthesis. Spine Deform. 2024;12(6):1761-72.
57. Guo X, Guo Z, Li W, Chen Z, Qi Q, Sun C, et al. Increased risk of adjacent segment spondylolisthesis or instability following L5-S1 versus L4-S1 fixation for L5-S1 high-grade dysplastic spondylolisthesis in children. Orthop Surg. 2025;17(4):1133-42.
58. Lamartina C, Zavatsky JM, Petruzzi M, Specchia N. Novel concepts in the evaluation and treatment of high-dysplastic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2009;18 Suppl 1:S133-42.
59. Douleh DG, Albert G, Garg S. Surgical techniques for adolescent lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Pediatr Orthop Soc North Am. 2022;4(4):545.
60. Hasan MY, Liu G, Wong HK, Tan JH. Postoperative complications of S2AI versus iliac screw in spinopelvic fixation: a meta-analysis and recent trends review. Spine J. 2020;20(6):964-72.
61. Jiao J, Guo D, Cao J, Zhang X, Yao Z. Scoliosis risk factors and outcomes in children with dysplastic spondylolisthesis undergoing surgical reduction and fixation. J Child Orthop. 2023;17(4):360-6.
62. Michael GE, Etigunta SK, Liu A, Perales M, Alexander C, Watterson C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-generated synthetic computed tomography in pediatric spine patients. JB JS Open Access. 2025;10(2).
63. Chang YC, Del Toro C, Gjolaj JP, Braga TA, Subhawong TK. Can artificial intelligence in spine imaging affect current practice? Practical developments and their clinical status. N Am Spine Soc J. 2025;23:100621.
64. Khan M, Ahuja K, Tsirikos AI. AI and machine learning in paediatric spine deformity surgery. Bone Jt Open. 2025;6(5):569-81.
65. Gu X, Zhang S, Liu Y, Qi J, Gu Y, Ma W. Mid-term efficacy of non-contact orthopedic robot navigation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024;25(1):898.
66. Dai Y, Shen G, Wang J, Chen Y, Wang K, Jin Q. Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2025;19(1):369.
Episode 06 – Early-Onset Scoliosis
Scheduled Premiere
Exclusive Premiere • Wednesday, October 07 at 9:00 PM (BRT)
Wednesday, October 07 at 9:00 PM (BRT)
The live countdown will be activated on the eve of the premiere.

The full videocast will premiere automatically in this player on Wednesday, 10/07 at 6:00 PM (BRT).

Also premiering on Spotify
Treatise in Debate

Official videocast derived from the treatise chapters.

Episode 06 – Early-Onset Scoliosis

Lungs and the Growing Spine: thoracic development, C-EOS classification, and growth-friendly surgical techniques