Home›The Treatise›Chapters›Chapter 39
Tratado de Cirurgia da Coluna Vertebral
SECTION 4 • 4
Chapter39

Adult Spondylolisthesis

Vancouver: Amaral R, Pokorny J, Pokorny G, Silva FTM, Moriguchi R, Magro IB, Pimenta L📖 Pages: 519-530
Full reading of this chapter is available exclusively in the printed edition of the Treatise.
Sec. 44
Cap. 39Clinical Chapter
7authors
Português
Español
English
Referênciasscientific citations
📑

Chapter Summary

• Context: Adult spondylolisthesis primarily encompasses two distinct clinicopathological presentations: degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS). DS results from progressive intervertebral disc and facet joint deterioration without a pars defect, predominating in women over 50 years of age and most frequently affecting the L4-L5 level. In contrast, IS stems from an abnormality in the pars interarticularis (stress fatigue fracture or congenital elongation), occurring more frequently in males and athletes exposed to repetitive lumbar hyperextension and rotatory loads, with highest incidence at L5-S1. Although both conditions can be discovered incidentally as asymptomatic radiographic findings, symptomatic patients suffer from axial low back pain, radiculopathy, and significant functional disability. The primary clinical challenge is to differentiate their underlying pathophysiological mechanics, correlate radiographic imaging with specific clinical symptoms, and select an individualized conservative or surgical strategy that avoids overtreatment while ensuring adequate neural decompression and sagittal stabilization.
• Chapter Objective: To equip the spine specialist with diagnostic differentiation and structured therapeutic algorithms for degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. The reader will master clinical and multi-modality imaging evaluation, formulate evidence-based conservative care, and define surgical indications based on segmental mechanical instability, neural compression, and the necessity of restoring regional and global sagittal alignment.
• Overview and Core FoundationsEpidemiology and Pathophysiology: Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is characterized by anterior or posterior vertebral slippage with an intact neural arch, secondary to disc senescence and facet arthrosis. It presents a 17.4% prevalence in the general population, predominantly affecting females over 50 at L4-L5. Its natural history is typically benign, rarely exceeding Meyerding Grade II due to natural stabilization by osteophytosis, disc space collapse, and ligamentous traction spurs. Isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) results from a pars defect, more common in males and athletes, predominantly affecting L5-S1 following bilateral juvenile spondylolysis. Clinical Presentation and Imaging: Both entities present with back pain and radiculopathy. DS frequently causes neurogenic claudication secondary to central and lateral recess stenosis. IS commonly presents with hamstring spasm and mechanical pain, while severe claudication and sphincter loss are rare. Initial imaging requires standing full-spine AP/lateral radiographs and dynamic flexion-extension views to quantify translational and angular instability. MRI is the modality of choice for soft tissues, foraminal stenosis, and neural compromise. CT characterizes pars fractures, facet orientation, and pedicle morphology. SPECT is reserved for active or occult spondylolytic stress reactions. Conservative and Surgical Management: First-line care involves NSAIDs, core physical therapy, weight management, and image-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections (demonstrating higher efficacy in DS). Surgery is indicated after conservative failure or progressive neurological deficits. In low-grade slips (<50%), decision-making hinges on mechanical instability and sagittal alignment: (1) Without instability or malalignment: isolated decompression or limited fusion; (2) With instability: segmental fusion; (3) Requiring sagittal restoration: anterior or lateral interbody devices (ALIF, LLIF, OLIF, or Prone Transpsoas / PTP) restore disc height and segmental lordosis (Figure 1). In high-grade slips (>50%), decompression and solid stabilization are paramount. Partial reduction is indicated selectively to improve sagittal balance, always accompanied by wide neural decompression to avoid traction injuries. In fusions without reduction, extending fixation to L4 with S2-Alar-Iliac (S2AI) screws is recommended. Future Directions: Modern evolution incorporates computer-assisted navigation, robotic guidance, full-endoscopic decompression, single-position prone transpsoas surgery (PTP), and machine learning predictive analytics for clinical outcomes.
• Clinical Application: In clinical practice, managing adult spondylolisthesis requires rigorous correlation between radiographic findings and patient symptomatology, avoiding surgery based solely on slip percentage. Standing flexion-extension radiographs define segmental dynamic instability, while MRI delineates central and subarticular stenosis. The choice between decompression alone and instrumented fusion rests on mechanical stability and the need for sagittal realignment. Standalone interbody cages must be used cautiously in osteoporotic or elderly patients due to subsidence risks. Anterior and lateral approaches (ALIF, LLIF, PTP) restore disc height and segmental lordosis, reducing adjacent-segment stress (Table 4). In high-grade slips, complete translational reduction should be avoided due to severe risk of L5 nerve root stretch neuropraxia; the priority is wide neuroforaminal release, restoring lumbosacral kyphosis, and achieving solid spinopelvic fusion.
🏷️

Keywords

Preferred DeCS/MeSH Descriptors:
SpondylolisthesisSpondylolysisLumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionSpinal StenosisLow Back PainRadiculopathy
⭐

Why this chapter matters

This chapter systematizes surgical decision-making in adult spondylolisthesis. By establishing clear criteria based on segmental instability and sagittal alignment, it guides the precise choice between decompression alone, posterior fusion, and anterior/lateral interbody techniques (including PTP). Furthermore, it provides practical safety pearls to prevent neurological complications and mechanical hardware failures in low- and high-grade cases.

“Adult spondylolisthesis comprises degenerative and isthmic etiologies, each requiring tailored management based on symptoms, instability, and sagittal balance rather than slip percentage alone. Conservative care is the initial standard, reserving surgery for refractory pain or neurological deficits. When operating, preserving sagittal alignment and ensuring safe neural decompression dictate successful long-term outcomes.”
✨

Chapter Highlights

🌐
Card 1 — Core Concept
Distinct Etiologies in Adult Spondylolisthesis

Degenerative spondylolisthesis stems from facet and disc deterioration, predominantly affecting females over 50 at L4-L5 with an intact pars. Isthmic spondylolisthesis results from a pars interarticularis defect, predominating in males and athletes at L5-S1.

🩺
Card 2 — Clinical Decision
Low-Grade Surgical Algorithm

In low-grade slips (<50%), surgery does not depend on slip percentage alone. Patients without instability or sagittal malalignment can receive decompression alone. When instability or loss of lordosis is present, interbody fusion (ALIF, LLIF, PTP) is recommended to restore sagittal balance.

📐
Card 3 — Pearl / Alert
Risks of High-Grade Slip Reduction

In high-grade slips (>50%), aggressive translational reduction sharply increases the risk of L5 root traction injury. The priority must be wide decompression and solid spinopelvic stabilization; partial reduction should only be attempted following thorough neural release.

📑

How to Cite this Chapter (Vancouver Format)

Official bibliographic indexing and citation guidelines
📖 Pages: 519-530Vancouver Style
Authors (Vancouver):Amaral R, Pokorny J, Pokorny G, Silva FTM, Moriguchi R, Magro IB, Pimenta L

Amaral R, Pokorny J, Pokorny G, Silva FTM, Moriguchi R, Magro IB, Pimenta L. Espondilolistese no adulto. 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. 519-530.

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

Bibliographic References

1. Wang YXJ, Káplár Z, Deng M, Leung JCS. Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis epidemiology: A systematic review with a focus on gender-specific and age-specific prevalence. J Orthop Translat 2017; 11: 39–52.
2. Atalay B, Gadjradj PS, Sommer FS, Wright D, Rawanduzy C, Ghogawala Z et al. Natural History of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2023; 176: e634–e643.
3. Bydon M, Alvi MA, Goyal A. Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Definition, Natural History, Conservative Management, and Surgical Treatment. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2019; 30: 299–304.
4. Chan AK, Sharma V, Robinson LC, Mummaneni PV. Summary of Guidelines for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2019; 30: 353–364.
5. Alomari S, Judy B, Sacino AN, Porras JL, Tang A, Sciubba D et al. Isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults… A review of the current literature. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 2022; 101: 124–130.
6. Bhalla A, Bono CM. Isthmic Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2019; 30: 283–290.
7. Arita S, Ishimoto Y, Hashizume H, Nagata K, Teraguchi M, Muraki S et al. Age-related prevalence of radiographic lumbar spondylolisthesis and its associations with low back pain, walking speed, and muscle index: findings from the second survey of the ROAD study. European Spine Journal 2025; 34: 1359–1365.
8. Kreiner DS, Baisden J, Mazanec DJ, Patel RD, Bess RS, Burton D et al. Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. The Spine Journal 2016; 16: 1478–1485.
9. Karsy M, Bisson EF. Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2019; 30: 333–340.
10. Reitman CA, Cho CH, Bono CM, Ghogawala Z, Glaser J, Kauffman C et al. Management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: development of appropriate use criteria. The Spine Journal 2021; 21: 1256–1267.
11. Gadjradj PS, Basilious M, Goldberg JL, Sommer F, Navarro-Ramirez R, Mykolajtchuk C et al. Decompression alone versus decompression with fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Spine Journal 2023; 32: 1054–1067.
12. Noorian S, Sorensen K, Cho W. A systematic review of clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. The Spine Journal 2018; 18: 1441–1454.
13. Sastry RA, Levy JF, Chen JS, Weil RJ, Oyelese AA, Fridley JS et al. Lumbar Decompression with and Without Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis with Spondylolisthesis: A Cost Utility Analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2024; 49: 847–856.
14. Ahlquist S, Park HY, Gatto J, Shamie AN, Park DY. Does approach matter? A comparative radiographic analysis of spinopelvic parameters in single-level lumbar fusion. Spine Journal 2018; 18: 1999–2008.
15. Amaral R, Pokorny G, Marcelino F, Moriguchi R, Pokorny J, Barreira I et al. Lateral versus posterior approaches to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies–systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature. European Spine Journal 2023; 32: 1655–1677.
16. Marchi L, Fortti F, Jensen R, Amaral RA, Coutinho E, Oliveira L et al. Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Preoperative Risk Factors for Subsidence. The Spine Journal 2016; 16: S267.
17. Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E, Pimenta L. The subsidence rate in XLIF osteoporotic patients in standalone procedures. The Spine Journal 2010; 10: S51–S52.
18. Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E, Pimenta L. Standalone anterior interbody fusion procedure for the treatment of low-grade spondylolisthesis: a case series. WSC J 2010; 1: 194–200.
19. Marchi L, Pimenta L, Amaral R, Fortti F, Nogueira-Neto J, Oliveira L et al. In which patients is it possible to perform standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion without cage subsidence? Coluna/Columna 2016; 15: 226–229.
20. Keorochana G, Setrkraising K, Woratanarat P, Arirachakaran A, Kongtharvonskul J. Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev. 2018; 41: 755–770.
21. Sembrano JN, Tohmeh A, Isaacs R. Two-year Comparative Outcomes of MIS Lateral and MIS Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Part I: Clinical Findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41 Suppl 8: s123–s132.
22. Sembrano JN, Tohmeh A, Isaacs R. Two-year Comparative Outcomes of MIS Lateral and MIS Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Part I: Clinical Findings. Spine 2016; 41 Suppl 8: S123-132.
23. Ko MJ, Park SW, Kim YB. Correction of spondylolisthesis by lateral lumbar interbody fusion compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4–5. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2019; 62: 422–431.
24. Kono Y, Gen H, Sakuma Y, Koshika Y. Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Results of Mini-Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Indirect Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine J 2018; 12: 356.
25. Daniels AH, Daher M, Nassar JE, Haddad S, Boissiere L, Hurley RK et al. Transforaminal Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 for Degenerative Spine Disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2025; 50: E231–E239.
26. Lightsey HM, Pisano AJ, Striano BM, Crawford AM, Xiong GX, Hershman S et al. ALIF Versus TLIF for L5-S1 Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: ALIF Demonstrates Superior Segmental and Regional Radiographic Outcomes and Clinical Improvements Across More Patient-reported Outcome Measures Domains. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2022; 47: 808–816.
27. Alhaug OK, Dolatowski FC, Thyrhaug AM, Mjønes S, Dos Reis JABPR, Austevoll I. Long-term comparison of anterior (ALIF) versus transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion: a propensity score-matched register-based study. European Spine Journal 2024; 33: 1109–1119.
28. Rathbone J, Rackham M, Nielsen D, Lee SM, Hing W, Riar S et al. A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). European Spine Journal 2023; 32: 1911–1926.
29. Pimenta L, Amaral R, Taylor W, Tomeh A, Pokorny G, Rodrigues R et al. The prone transpsoas technique: preliminary radiographic results of a multicenter experience. European Spine Journal 2020. doi:10.1007/s00586-020-06471-y.
30. Pimenta L, Taylor WR, Stone LE, Wali AR, Santiago-Dieppa DR. Prone transpsoas technique for simultaneous single position access to the anterior and posterior spine. Oper Neurosurg 2020.
31. Amaral R, Daher MT, Pratali R, Arnoni D, Pokorny G, Rodrigues R et al. The Effect of Patient Position on Psoas Morphology and in Lumbar Lordosis. World Neurosurg 2021; 153: e131–e140.
32. Smith TG, Pollina J, Joseph SA, Howell KM. Effects of Surgical Positioning on L4-L5 Accessibility and Lumbar Lordosis in Lateral Transpsoas Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Prone and Lateral Decubitus in Asymptomatic Adults. World Neurosurg 2021; 149: e705–e713.
33. Beck AW, Simpson AK. High-Grade Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2019; 30: 291–298.
34. Kim M, Kim HS, Oh SW, Adsul NM, Singh R, Kashlan ON et al. Evolution of spinal endoscopic surgery. Neurospine 2019; 16: 6–14.
35. Pimenta L, Taylor WR, Stone LE, Wali AR, Santiago-Dieppa DR. Prone Transpsoas Technique for Simultaneous Single-Position Access to the Anterior and Posterior Lumbar Spine. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2020; 20: E5–E12.
36. Harrison DJ, Bhandarkar AR, Durrani S, Zamanian C, Singh R, Bydon M. Emerging innovations for lumbar spondylolisthesis management: a systematic review of active and prospective clinical trials. Neurosurg Rev 2022; 45: 3629–3640.
37. André A, Peyrou B, Carpentier A, Vignaux J-J. Feasibility and Assessment of a Machine Learning-Based Predictive Model of Outcome After Lumbar Decompression Surgery. Global Spine J 2020; : 2192568220969373.
38. Shah AA, Devana SK, Lee C, Bugarin A, Lord EL, Shamie AN et al. Prediction of Major Complications and Readmission After Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Machine Learning–Driven Approach. World Neurosurg 2021; 152: e227–e234.
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