Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Pars Interarticularis Injury Treatment & Management

  • Author: Gerard A Malanga, MD; Chief Editor: Craig C Young, MD  more...
 
Updated: Oct 20, 2015
 

Acute Phase

Rehabilitation Program

Physical Therapy

During the acute phase of rehabilitation for patients with spondylolysis, the focus is to reduce the pain. Instruction in posture and biomechanics with activities of daily living (ADL) can help to protect the injured pars, thus reducing symptoms and preventing further injury. A period of rest for an average of 2-4 weeks can provide beneficial effects by modulating pain, decreasing inflammation, and decreasing the risk for further progression of a pars stress reaction to a frank fracture.

Applying ice to the injured area for 20 minutes 3-4 times a day in conjunction with performing gentle ROM exercises and stretching of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles is strongly advised. Activity modification is recommended. The patient is advised to stop the activity or sport that evokes the back pain for an average of 2-4 weeks.[23, 44, 52] In particular, the patient should avoid any activities involving hyperextension.

Bracing

Indications for the use of a brace are lack of symptom improvement by 2-4 weeks, the presence of a true fracture, the presence of a spondylolisthesis, the need for pain control, and the lack of patient compliance to activity restrictions.[53]

There are no randomized, double-blinded studies of brace application in the treatment of spondylolysis; however, several authors have demonstrated good results. In 1985, a widely referenced study by Steiner and Micheli evaluated 67 patients with symptomatic spondylosis or low-grade spondylolisthesis via plain film or planar bone scan without a control group.[54] A rigid, antilordotic, modified Boston brace was applied for 23 hours per day for 6 months, followed by 6 months of weaning. Follow-up at an average of 2.5 years demonstrated good or excellent results, and 23% of patients showed bony healing on radiograph.

Furthermore, Blanda et al examined 62 patients with spondylolysis and found that 84% had excellent results with conservative treatment, which included using a lumbar brace, at an average follow-up of 4.2 years.[24] Overall, the results of bracing vary from complete healing with resolution of back pain to nonunion, persistence of pain, or progression to spondylolisthesis. Using return to sport as the end point, the success of bracing has ranged widely from 7-84%.[24, 55, 56, 57, 58]

In contrast to the above studies, several authors have reported on the treatment of patients with symptomatic spondylolysis using a soft brace or no brace instead of a rigid brace. Rigid braces do not have a stabilizing effect on the sagittal, vertical, and transverse intervertebral translations and provide gross limitation of body motion.

Morita et al studied 185 adolescents with spondylolysis and classified the pars defects into early, progressive, and terminal stages.[58] Conservative management included the use of a conventional lumbar corset for 3-6 months. Follow-up radiographs showed healing without the use of a rigid brace in 73% of the patients in the early stage, in 38.5% of those in the progressive stage, and in 0% of those in the terminal stage.[58]

Jackson et al also examined 7 athletes who had a positive bone scan with negative lumbosacral plain films and discovered that if the bony reaction was recognized early, healing at the subroentgenographic level could occur with rest and activity modification without the use of a brace.[59] Furthermore, Congeni et al examined 40 young athletes diagnosed with spondylolysis on bone scan and followed a treatment protocol of nonrigid bracing, specific educational guidelines instructing patients to avoid hyperextension activities, flexibility training, strengthening, and cardiovascular activities.[47] Only 2 of 40 patients needed to switch to a rigid brace after 4 weeks due to persistent pain. None of the patients required surgical intervention at a follow-up period ranging from 3 months to 5 years.[47]

Research on the biomechanical effects of bracing and its effect of immobilization on the spine has been performed. Axelsson et al studied 7 patients following posterolateral lumbosacral fusions without internal fixation.[60] These individuals were examined by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis in supine and erect positions 1 month postsurgery without lumbar support, with a molded rigid orthosis, and with a canvas corset with a molded plastic posterior support. Neither of the 2 types of lumbar support showed any evidence of a stabilizing effect on the sagittal, vertical, or transverse intervertebral translations.

Lantz and Schultz also reviewed 4 trunk movements in 5 young men wearing a lumbosacral corset, a chairback brace, and a molded plastic thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) in standing and sitting positions.[61] All 3 orthoses restricted some gross body motion, approximately one half to two thirds more than in patients without an orthosis. Both studies confirmed that a lumbosacral orthosis restricts gross motions of the trunk rather than intervertebral mobility in the lumbar spine.

Willems et al investigated whether plaster casts actually immobilize the lumbosacral joint. They studied 10 patients placed in a plaster cast and examined the lumbosacral joint of these patients, using a 3-dimensional (3-D) motion analysis system in static and dynamic test conditions. Willems et al found that plaster casting did decrease lumbosacral mobility during static test conditions and did not significantly decrease the mobility of the lumbosacral joint in dynamic test conditions.[62] Hence, the most consistent effect of the lumbosacral orthoses appears to be the limitation of gross body motion. The rigid bracing seems to be the most effective.

Sairyo et al assessed the efficacy of using a hard brace to restrict lumbar rotation and extension. They treated 37 patients younger than 18 years with incomplete pars interarticularis injury. They stratified the patients into 4 categories: early, progressive with high signal intensity, progressive with low signal intensity, and terminal defects. The union rates for early defect were 94%, progressive with high signal intensity were 64%, progressive with low signal intensity were 27%, and terminal were 0%. They also showed that based on CT findings, the mean time to heal was 3.2 months for the early-defects group, 5.4 months for the progressive with high signal intensity group, and 5.7 months for the progressive with low signal intensity group. They concluded that patients with early-stage defects are the best candidates for conservative treatment with a hard brace based on their findings.[63]

Based on current literature, the need for bracing is limited. Bracing can be considered in patients who continue to have symptoms despite a period of rest. For most of these patients, nonrigid bracing is adequate. The Sairyo et al study suggests that patients younger than 18 years with early defects on CT scan may be good candidates for rigid hard bracing for 3 months, owing to the high rate of union in their study.[63]

Surgical Intervention

During the acute phase, it is the general consensus in the medical community to attempt conservative management before implementing surgical intervention. Many studies support the nonsurgical approach.

Wiltse et al demonstrated that 12 of 17 young patients diagnosed with spondylolysis showed osseous healing with conservative treatment and no surgery.[26] Steiner and Micheli demonstrated radiologic healing in 18% of 67 patients with symptomatic spondylolysis or grade I spondylolisthesis.[54] Furthermore, Blanda et al examined 62 patients with spondylolysis and found 52 patients had excellent results with conservative treatment, with an average follow-up of 4.2 years.[24] In a longitudinal study of young athletes with early detected spondylolysis who were treated with conservative management, 29 of 32 respondents had good to excellent low back outcome scores at an average follow-up interval of 9 years.[64]

Early diagnosis is an important factor for a good prognosis in bone healing. Ciullo and Jackson studied gymnasts and found that the longer symptoms were present before treatment, the more likely that surgical intervention was needed.[65] Jackson also examined 7 athletes with positive bone scans and negative lumbosacral plain films.[59] Jackson discovered that if the bony reaction was recognized early, healing at the subroentgenographic level could occur with conservative treatment.

Furthermore, Morita et studied 185 adolescents with spondylolysis and classified the pars defects into early, progressive, and terminal stages.[11] Conservative management produced healing in 73% of the early stage cases, in 38.5% of the progressive stage cases, and in 0% of the cases with terminal defects.

These studies suggest that spondylolysis can successfully be treated using conservative treatment if diagnosed at an early stage.

Sairyo et al described a new minimally invasive technique to repair pars interarticularis defects in 2 adults, in which they modified the established pedicle screw and hook-rod system technique.[66] Percutaneous insertion of bilateral pedicle screws was performed with the Sextant system; then, an illuminated tubular retractor was inserted through a small skin incision into the pars defect, and the nearby bursa and fibrocartilaginous mass were removed. The pseudoarthrosis at the spondylolytic level was decorticated, followed by implantation of bone grafts and attachment of the hook portion of the hook-rod system to the lamina. The rod was secured at the pedicle screws' tulip head.[66] Sairyo et al reported resolution of the patients' low back pain immediately postsurgery, with postoperative return to their work or sports activities by 3 months.

Gillis et al described an application of a minimally invasive surgery pars repair technique on 8 athletes which attempts to recreate the normal anatomy rather than fusing across a motion segment. The study reported that minimally invasive surgery advantages include less muscle tissue disruption and restoration of the natural anatomy which leads to a more rapid recovery, decreased perioperative pain, minimal blood loss, earlier mobilization and decreased hospital length of stay. At one year follow-up, 6 of the 8 athletes had been able to return to their previous sport activity level.[67]

Other Treatment

The use of external electrical stimulation for the healing of spondylolysis has been reported in 2 cases in the literature. Electrical stimulation has been used to heal fractures in all areas of the body. Although the literature supports the efficacy of electrical stimulation in healing fractures, the use of electrical stimulation for healing of spondylosis is not well studied and generally not necessary.[68]

Next

Recovery Phase

Rehabilitation Program

Physical Therapy

Once the LBP is controlled during the acute phase of treatment, a therapy program can be initiated. If the patient’s symptoms significantly decrease with rest and activity modification, a regimen of hamstring and hip flexor stretching, abdominal strengthening, lumbar flexion exercises, and cross-training with extension precautions can be instituted. If the patient requires the use of a brace, an initial program of hamstring stretching while wearing the brace can be started.

As the symptoms continue to decrease, lumbar flexion exercises, abdominal strengthening, and hip flexor and hamstring stretching can be instituted without the use of the brace. Cross-training in nonextension activities can be performed, such as the stationary bike and hydrotherapy.[3, 11, 26, 44, 47, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60]

These exercises are eventually incorporated into a more comprehensive rehabilitation program that includes spinal stabilization exercises that help the patient in finding the neutral position of the spine (ie, the position that produces the least amount of pain). This position is dependent on the specific individual and is determined by the pelvic and spine posture that places the least stress on the elements of the spine and supporting structures. In classic spondylolysis pain, the neutral spine has a flexion bias. Dynamic lumbar stabilization exercises may be used to help provide dynamic muscular control and to protect the spine from biomechanical stresses, such as tension, compression, torsion, and shear.[69]

Surgical Intervention

See Maintenance Phase.

Previous
Next

Maintenance Phase

Rehabilitation Program

Physical Therapy

The maintenance phase represents the final phase of the rehabilitation program for those affected by spondylolysis, spondylolisthesis, or pars interarticularis injuries. A home exercise regimen is prescribed and should be performed on a daily basis. An analysis of variables should be performed for each individual athlete so that further injuries can be prevented. Such variables include biomechanical errors, anthropomorphic features, posture, cardiovascular fitness, psychosocial factors, level of training, specific activities, medical pathology, and sports participation.

Biomechanical errors should be assessed with the specific requirements of the sport in mind. For example, movements in ballet dancing require maximal hip external rotation; therefore, a deficit may cause stretching of the abdominal muscles and thereby increase lumbar lordosis. Consequently, increased stress on the posterior elements of the spine may occur.[69, 70]

Anthropomorphic features involve looking at predictive factors that may lead to back injury. For example, hypermobility of the spine in lumbar extension in female gymnasts may be predictive of back injuries.[71, 72, 73] The posture of the athlete in the specific sport is also important to analyze, because it is well known that hyperextension of the back can cause increased stress on the posterior elements of the spine. A tight hip flexor muscle can also cause increased stress on the spine because it arises from the sides of the intervertebral discs and the adjacent ends of the vertebral bodies from T12-L4 and from the transverse processes of all the lumbar vertebrae.[74]

Intramuscular electromyography (EMG) recordings have shown that the only lumbar movement that consistently recruits the hip flexor is a deliberate increase in lumbar lordosis while an individual is standing erect.[75] Therefore, if this muscle is tight, it can promote an increase in lumbar lordosis and, hence, increased stress on the posterior elements of the spine. Another study also showed an association of LBP with tight hip flexors.[76]

Cardiovascular fitness should also be stressed in order to increase endurance and decrease fatigue. Psychosocial factors are also important to incorporate into the maintenance phase, because pain can be magnified by depression.

Medical pathology should also be evaluated, especially in female athletes who are at risk for the female athlete triad, which includes disordered eating patterns, amenorrhea, and osteoporosis. Eating disorders include anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. The prevalence of eating disorders in female athletes is 5-10% higher than in female nonathletes, and some reports indicate the prevalence is as high as 15-62%.[77] The prevalence of primary amenorrhea is reported to be as high as 4-66% in female athletes, compared with 2-5% in the general population.[77]

Amenorrhea is postulated to occur as a result of poor diet and excessive exercise, which can cause hormonal changes that inhibit ovulation. Consequently, with low estrogen levels, early osteoporosis can occur; therefore, the risk for fracture is increased in this population.

Sports participation should also be examined. For instance, the athlete may be involved in more than one sport. The above variables should also be carefully analyzed for the second sport. Regardless of the sport, maintenance of proper spine positioning during play should focus on spinal stabilization and maintaining a neutral spine. The program should progress to a functional exercise regimen and then to sport-specific training. In general, the abdominal, gluteal, and back extensor muscles are the key muscles to strengthen and build endurance.

Surgical Intervention

Indications for surgery include (1) persistent pain unrelieved by rest and immobilization for more than 6 months, (2) progression to spondylolisthesis, (3) spondylolisthesis of greater than grade II in a patient about to undergo the preadolescent growth spurt, and (4) any significant neurologic abnormalities.[3, 52, 78] As discussed above, the prognosis of bone healing is dependent on the stage of the spondylolytic lesion.[11] Dubousset reported that if treatment is delayed for 3 months or more after the fracture occurs, nonoperative treatment is unsuccessful.[79] Surgical options include direct repair of the spondylolytic defect, fusion in situ, reduction and fusion, and vertebrectomy.

Ideal candidates for direct repair of the pars defect are those with early lesions, with lysis but no listhesis, and with the lytic defect between L1-L4. L5 lytic defects have been reported to yield less predictable results due to the fact that many L5 defects occur because of a developmentally weakened and elongated pars.[23] Surgical techniques generally employ debridement of the lytic defect, application of large amounts of autogenous iliac crest cancellous bone graft, and tension band wiring or screw fixation from the cephalad portion of the posterior element to the free-floating caudal fragment. Bone healing of 75% to greater than 90% and symptomatic relief in 70-90% of the patients have been reported with the screw fixation technique.[80, 81] Tension band wiring with 73-100% bony union has been reported.[23, 82]

Ideal candidates for a fusion-in-situ procedure are patients with a low-grade spondylolisthesis that remains symptomatic despite nonoperative measures or those with a high-grade spondylolisthesis and acceptable sagittal balance. Reports of fusion rates of 83-95% and good or excellent results in 75-100% of the patients have been reported.[83, 84]

Decompression and fusion are indicated when severe neurologic signs of compression are present, such as radiating leg pain, numbness, and weakness with corresponding imaging studies demonstrating nerve root or thecal sac compression. Reduction is indicated to prevent the complications of progression of slip, pseudoarthrosis, and cosmetic deformity associated with in-situ fusion; hence, reduction of high-grade slips is often performed. Reduction (closed or open) serves to correct lumbosacral kyphosis and to diminish the sagittal translation seen in high-grade slips. Also, correction of lumbosacral kyphosis decreases the compensatory hyperlordosis above the fusion site.[23]

Spondyloptosis, complete slippage of one vertebra on the next lower vertebra, is an indication for vertebrectomy. This condition has a high rate of neurologic dysfunction, such as cauda equina syndrome. The Gaines procedure (stage 2) is commonly used. The first stage is anterior resection of the L5 vertebral body. Several days later, the second stage involves posterior resection of the remainder of the L5 pedicles and posterior elements after distraction via Harrington outriggers. Pedicle screws are placed in L4 and S1, and reduction is performed. This procedure is associated with iatrogenic neurologic deficits due to the preexisting neurologic dysfunction from the slipped vertebra. Reports of 25-30% of patients developing neurologic deficits postoperatively have been reported.[23]

Complications of surgery include disc degeneration adjacent to previously fused segments; however, Szypryt et al reported that disc degeneration, either at the disc or adjacent disc., was uncommon in patients younger than 25 years.[85, 86] In fact, the investigators found that patients who are older than 25 years and who are not treated developed a higher prevalence of disc degeneration at the deranged motion segment, as well as at the adjacent segment when compared with age-matched healthy patients.[85] Other complications include slip progression after surgery and iatrogenic neurologic deficit.[23]

Consultations

A consultation with a spine surgeon may be indicated if conservative management is unsuccessful.

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Gerard A Malanga, MD Founder and Partner, New Jersey Sports Medicine, LLC and New Jersey Regenerative Institute; Director of Research, Atlantic Health; Clinical Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School; Fellow, American College of Sports Medicine

Gerard A Malanga, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, North American Spine Society, International Spine Intervention Society, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American College of Sports Medicine

Disclosure: Received honoraria from Cephalon for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from Endo for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from Genzyme for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from Prostakan for speaking and teaching; Received consulting fee from Pfizer for speaking and teaching.

Coauthor(s)

Nancy Kim, MD Staff Physician, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

Nancy Kim, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Association of Academic Physiatrists

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chris Perez, MD Staff Physician, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

Chris Perez, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

David L Tung, MD, MPH Medical Director, PainCare Ambulatory Surgical Center

David L Tung, MD, MPH is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, North American Spine Society, International Spine Intervention Society, North American Neuromodulation Society

Disclosure: Received honoraria from Purdue Pharmaceutical for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from Endo Pharmaceutical for speaking and teaching.

Michael Goldin, MD Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Washington Township Medical Foundation

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Henry T Goitz, MD Academic Chair and Associate Director, Detroit Medical Center Sports Medicine Institute; Director, Education, Research, and Injury Prevention Center; Co-Director, Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship

Henry T Goitz, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Craig C Young, MD Professor, Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and Community and Family Medicine, Medical Director of Sports Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin

Craig C Young, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Sports Medicine, American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, Phi Beta Kappa

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Andrew L Sherman, MD, MS Associate Professor of Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine, Vice Chairman, Chief of Spine and Musculoskeletal Services, Program Director, SCI Fellowship and PMR Residency Programs, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Miami, Leonard A Miller School of Medicine

Andrew L Sherman, MD, MS is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American Medical Association, Association of Academic Physiatrists

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References
  1. Debnath UK, Freeman BJ, Grevitt MP, et al. Clinical outcome of symptomatic unilateral stress injuries of the lumbar pars interarticularis. Spine. 2007 Apr 20. 32(9):995-1000. [Medline].

  2. Olsen TL, Anderson RL, Dearwater SR, Kriska AM, Cauley JA, Aaron DJ, et al. The epidemiology of low back pain in an adolescent population. Am J Public Health. 1992 Apr. 82(4):606-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  3. Garry JP, McShane J. Lumbar spondylolysis in adolescent athletes. J Fam Pract. 1998 Aug. 47(2):145-9. [Medline].

  4. Hu SS, Tribus CB, Diab M, Ghanayem AJ. Spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis. Instr Course Lect. 2008. 57:431-45. [Medline].

  5. Standaert CJ, Herring SA. Spondylolysis: a critical review. Br J Sports Med. 2000 Dec. 34(6):415-22. [Medline].

  6. Wu SS, Lee CH, Chen PQ. Operative repair of symptomatic spondylolysis following a positive response to diagnostic pars injection. J Spinal Disord. 1999 Feb. 12(1):10-6. [Medline].

  7. Roche MA, Rowe GG. The incidence of separate neural arch and coincident bone variations: A survey of 4200 skeletons. Anat Rec. 1951. 109:233-52.

  8. Eisenstein S. Spondylolysis. A skeletal investigation of two population groups. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1978 Nov. 60-B(4):488-94. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  9. Beutler WJ, Fredrickson BE, Murtland A, et al. The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: 45-year follow-up evaluation. Spine. 2003 May 15. 28(10):1027-35; discussion 1035. [Medline].

  10. Micheli LJ, Wood R. Back pain in young athletes. Significant differences from adults in causes and patterns. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995 Jan. 149(1):15-8. [Medline].

  11. Morita T, Ikata T, Katoh S, Miyake R. Lumbar spondylolysis in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 Jul. 77(4):620-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  12. Duggleby T, Kumar S. Epidemiology of juvenile low back pain: a review. Disabil Rehabil. 1997 Dec. 19(12):505-12. [Medline].

  13. Fredrickson BE, Baker D, McHolick WJ, Yuan HA, Lubicky JP. The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Jun. 66(5):699-707. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  14. Wiltse LL. The etiology of spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1962 Apr. 44-A:539-60. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  15. Bell DF, Ehrlich MG, Zaleske DJ. Brace treatment for symptomatic spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Nov. 236:192-8. [Medline].

  16. Hoshina H. Spondylolysis in athletes. Phys Sportsmed. 1980. 8(9):75-9.

  17. Ogilvie JW, Sherman J. Spondylolysis in Scheuermann's disease. Spine. 1987 Apr. 12(3):251-3. [Medline].

  18. Saraste H. Long-term clinical and radiological follow-up of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. J Pediatr Orthop. 1987 Nov-Dec. 7(6):631-8. [Medline].

  19. Wiltse LL, Newman PH, Macnab I. Classification of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Jun. 117:23-9. [Medline].

  20. Leone A, Cianfoni A, Cerase A, Magarelli N, Bonomo L. Lumbar spondylolysis: a review. Skeletal Radiol. 2011 Jun. 40(6):683-700. [Medline].

  21. Zehnder SW, Ward CV, Crow AJ, Alander D, Latimer B. Radiographic assessment of lumbar facet distance spacing and pediatric spondylolysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Feb 1. 34(3):285-90. [Medline].

  22. Ward CV, Latimer B, Alander DH, Parker J, Ronan JA, Holden AD, et al. Radiographic assessment of lumbar facet distance spacing and spondylolysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Jan 15. 32(2):E85-8. [Medline].

  23. Smith JA, Hu SS. Management of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in the pediatric and adolescent population. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999 Jul. 30(3):487-99, ix. [Medline].

  24. Blanda J, Bethem D, Moats W, Lew M. Defects of pars interarticularis in athletes: a protocol for nonoperative treatment. J Spinal Disord. 1993 Oct. 6(5):406-11. [Medline].

  25. Phalen G, Dickson J. Spondylolisthesis and tight hamstrings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1961. 43:505-12. [Full Text].

  26. Wiltse LL, Widell EH Jr, Jackson DW. Fatigue fracture: the basic lesion is inthmic spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975 Jan. 57(1):17-22. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  27. Rosenberg NJ, Bargar WL, Friedman B. The incidence of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in nonambulatory patients. Spine. 1981 Jan-Feb. 6(1):35-8. [Medline].

  28. Dietrich M, Kurowski P. The importance of mechanical factors in the etiology of spondylolysis. A model analysis of loads and stresses in human lumbar spine. Spine. 1985 Jul-Aug. 10(6):532-42. [Medline].

  29. Cyron BM, Hutton WC. The fatigue strength of the lumbar neural arch in spondylolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1978 May. 60-B(2):234-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  30. Gregory PL, Batt ME, Kerslake RW, Scammell BE, Webb JF. The value of combining single photon emission computerised tomography and computerised tomography in the investigation of spondylolysis. Eur Spine J. 2004 Oct. 13(6):503-9. [Medline].

  31. Green TP, Allvey JC, Adams MA. Spondylolysis. Bending of the inferior articular processes of lumbar vertebrae during simulated spinal movements. Spine. 1994 Dec 1. 19(23):2683-91. [Medline].

  32. Letts M, Smallman T, Afanasiev R, Gouw G. Fracture of the pars interarticularis in adolescent athletes: a clinical-biomechanical analysis. J Pediatr Orthop. 1986 Jan-Feb. 6(1):40-6. [Medline].

  33. Edelson JG, Nathan H. Nerve root compression in spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986 Aug. 68(4):596-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  34. Eisenstein SM, Ashton IK, Roberts S, et al. Innervation of the spondylolysis "ligament". Spine. 1994 Apr 15. 19(8):912-6. [Medline].

  35. Nordstrom D, Santavirta S, Seitsalo S, et al. Symptomatic lumbar spondylolysis. Neuroimmunologic studies. Spine. 1994 Dec 15. 19(24):2752-8. [Medline].

  36. Hasegawa S, Yamamoto H, Morisawa Y, Michinaka Y. A study of mechanoreceptors in fibrocartilage masses in the defect of pars interarticularis. J Orthop Sci. 1999. 4(6):413-20. [Medline].

  37. Aland C, Rineberg BA, Malberg M, Fried SH. Fracture of the pedicle of the fourth lumbar vertebra associated with contralateral spondylolysis. Report of a case. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Dec. 68(9):1454-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  38. Pierce ME. Spondylolysis: what does this mean? A review. Australas Radiol. 1987 Nov. 31(4):391-4. [Medline].

  39. Amato M, Totty WG, Gilula LA. Spondylolysis of the lumbar spine: demonstration of defects and laminal fragmentation. Radiology. 1984 Dec. 153(3):627-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  40. Lowe J, Schachner E, Hirschberg E, Shapiro Y, Libson E. Significance of bone scintigraphy in symptomatic spondylolysis. Spine. 1984 Sep. 9(6):653-5. [Medline].

  41. Bodner RJ, Heyman S, Drummond DS, Gregg JR. The use of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in the diagnosis of low-back pain in young patients. Spine. 1988 Oct. 13(10):1155-60. [Medline].

  42. Bellah RD, Summerville DA, Treves ST, Micheli LJ. Low-back pain in adolescent athletes: detection of stress injury to the pars interarticularis with SPECT. Radiology. 1991 Aug. 180(2):509-12. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  43. Itoh K, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Yamane S, Tamaki N. Bone SPET of symptomatic lumbar spondylolysis. Nucl Med Commun. 1996 May. 17(5):389-96. [Medline].

  44. Herring SA, Standaert CJ. The spine in sports: re-evaluating the diagnostic assessment and treatment of spondylolysis in the young athlete. SpineLine. 2001. 1:16-20.

  45. Dutton JA, Hughes SP, Peters AM. SPECT in the management of patients with back pain and spondylolysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2000 Feb. 25(2):93-6. [Medline].

  46. Harvey CJ, Richenberg JL, Saifuddin A, Wolman RL. The radiological investigation of lumbar spondylolysis. Clin Radiol. 1998 Oct. 53(10):723-8. [Medline].

  47. Congeni J, McCulloch J, Swanson K. Lumbar spondylolysis. A study of natural progression in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1997 Mar-Apr. 25(2):248-53. [Medline].

  48. Yamane T, Yoshida T, Mimatsu K. Early diagnosis of lumbar spondylolysis by MRI. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Sep. 75(5):764-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  49. Goda Y, Sakai T, Sakamaki T, Takata Y, Higashino K, Sairyo K. Analysis of MRI signal changes in the adjacent pedicle of adolescent patients with fresh lumbar spondylolysis. Eur Spine J. 2014 Sep. 23(9):1892-5. [Medline].

  50. Kobayashi A, Kobayashi T, Kato K, Higuchi H, Takagishi K. Diagnosis of radiographically occult lumbar spondylolysis in young athletes by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Jan. 41(1):169-76. [Medline].

  51. Maurer M, Soder RB, Baldisserotto M. Spine abnormalities depicted by magnetic resonance imaging in adolescent rowers. Am J Sports Med. 2011 Feb. 39(2):392-7. [Medline].

  52. King HA. Back pain in children. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999 Jul. 30(3):467-74, ix. [Medline].

  53. Seitsalo S, Osterman K, Hyvãrinen H, et al. Progression of spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. A long-term follow-up of 272 patients. Spine. 1991 Apr. 16(4):417-21. [Medline].

  54. Steiner ME, Micheli LJ. Treatment of symptomatic spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis with the modified Boston brace. Spine. 1985 Dec. 10(10):937-43. [Medline].

  55. Ikata T, Miyake R, Katoh S, Morita T, Murase M. Pathogenesis of sports-related spondylolisthesis in adolescents. Radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Sports Med. 1996 Jan-Feb. 24(1):94-8. [Medline].

  56. Pizzutillo PD, Hummer CD 3rd. Nonoperative treatment for painful adolescent spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. J Pediatr Orthop. 1989 Sep-Oct. 9(5):538-40. [Medline].

  57. Pettine KA, Salib RM, Walker SG. External electrical stimulation and bracing for treatment of spondylolysis. A case report. Spine. 1993 Mar 15. 18(4):436-9. [Medline].

  58. Micheli LJ, Hall JE, Miller ME. Use of modified Boston brace for back injuries in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1980 Sep-Oct. 8(5):351-6. [Medline].

  59. Jackson DW, Wiltse LL, Dingeman RD, Hayes M. Stress reactions involving the pars interarticularis in young athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1981 Sep-Oct. 9(5):304-12. [Medline].

  60. Axelsson P, Johnsson R, Strömqvist B. Effect of lumbar orthosis on intervertebral mobility. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine. 1992 Jun. 17(6):678-81. [Medline].

  61. Lantz SA, Schultz AB. Lumbar spine orthosis wearing. I. Restriction of gross body motions. Spine. 1986 Oct. 11(8):834-7. [Medline].

  62. Willems PC, Nienhuis B, Sietsma M, van der Schaaf DB, Pavlov PW. The effect of a plaster cast on lumbosacral joint motion. An in vivo assessment with precision motion analysis system. Spine. 1997 Jun 1. 22(11):1229-34. [Medline].

  63. Sairyo K, Sakai T, Yasui N, Dezawa A. Conservative treatment for pediatric lumbar spondylolysis to achieve bone healing using a hard brace: what type and how long?: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Jun. 16(6):610-4. [Medline].

  64. Miller SF, Congeni J, Swanson K. Long-term functional and anatomical follow-up of early detected spondylolysis in young athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2004 Jun. 32(4):928-33. [Medline].

  65. Ciullo JV, Jackson DW. Pars interarticularis stress reaction, spondylolysis, and spondylolisthesis in gymnasts. Clin Sports Med. 1985 Jan. 4(1):95-110. [Medline].

  66. Sairyo K, Sakai T, Yasui N. Minimally invasive technique for direct repair of pars interarticularis defects in adults using a percutaneous pedicle screw and hook-rod system. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009 May. 10(5):492-5. [Medline].

  67. Gillis CC, Eichholz K, Thoman WJ, Fessler RG. A minimally invasive approach to defects of the pars interarticularis: Restoring function in competitive athletes. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015 Aug 28. 139:29-34. [Medline].

  68. Stasinopoulos D. Treatment of spondylolysis with external electrical stimulation in young athletes: a critical literature review. Br J Sports Med. 2004 Jun. 38(3):352-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  69. Kaul MP, Herring SA. Rehabilitation of lumbar spine injuries in sports. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 1994. 5(1):133-56.

  70. Hald RD. Dance injuries. Prim Care. 1992 Jun. 19(2):393-411. [Medline].

  71. Steele VA, White JA. Injury prediction in female gymnasts. Br J Sports Med. 1986 Mar. 20(1):31-3. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  72. Nadler SF, Malanga GA, DePrince M, Stitik TP, Feinberg JH. The relationship between lower extremity injury, low back pain, and hip muscle strength in male and female collegiate athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2000 Apr. 10(2):89-97. [Medline].

  73. Nadler SF, Wu KD, Galski T, Feinberg JH. Low back pain in college athletes. A prospective study correlating lower extremity overuse or acquired ligamentous laxity with low back pain. Spine. 1998 Apr 1. 23(7):828-33. [Medline].

  74. Hollinshead WH, Rosse C. Lower limb. Textbook of Anatomy. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven; 1986. 678-81.

  75. Basmajian JV, DeLuca CJ. Lower limb. Basmajian JV, DeLuca CJ, eds. Muscles Alive: Their Functions Revealed by Electromyography. 5th ed. Baltimore, Md: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1985. 310-5.

  76. Kujala UM, Salminen JJ, Taimela S, Oksanen A, Jaakkola L. Subject characteristics and low back pain in young athletes and nonathletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992 Jun. 24(6):627-32. [Medline].

  77. Hoch AZ. The female athlete: what’s new? Presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics; 2001; San Francisco, Calif.

  78. Omey ML, Micheli LJ, Gerbino PG 2nd. Idiopathic scoliosis and spondylolysis in the female athlete. Tips for treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Mar. 372:74-84. [Medline].

  79. Dubousset J. Treatment of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Apr. 337:77-85. [Medline].

  80. Pedersen AK, Hagen R. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Treatment by internal fixation and bone-grafting of the defect. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988 Jan. 70(1):15-24. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  81. Roca J, Moretta D, Fuster S, Roca A. Direct repair of spondylolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Sep. 246:86-91. [Medline].

  82. Morscher E, Gerber B, Fasel J. Surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis by bone grafting and direct stabilization of spondylolysis by means of a hook screw. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1984. 103(3):175-8. [Medline].

  83. Newton PO, Johnston CE 2nd. Analysis and treatment of poor outcomes following in situ arthrodesis in adolescent spondylolisthesis. J Pediatr Orthop. 1997 Nov-Dec. 17(6):754-61. [Medline].

  84. Wiltse LL, Jackson DW. Treatment of spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Jun. 117:92-100. [Medline].

  85. Szypryt EP, Twining P, Mulholland RC, Worthington BS. The prevalence of disc degeneration associated with neural arch defects of the lumbar spine assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 1989 Sep. 14(9):977-81. [Medline].

  86. Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL. Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine. 1996 Apr 15. 21(8):970-81. [Medline].

  87. Anderson SJ. Assessment and management of the pediatric and adolescent patient with low back pain. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 1991. 2:157-85.

  88. Blackburne JS, Velikas EP. Spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1977 Nov. 59-B(4):490-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  89. 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. 1979 Mar-Apr. 4(2):163-7. [Medline].

  90. Dunn AJ, Campbell RS, Mayor PE, Rees D. Radiological findings and healing patterns of incomplete stress fractures of the pars interarticularis. Skeletal Radiol. 2008 May. 37(5):443-50. [Medline].

  91. Elliott S, Hutson MA, Wastie ML. Bone scintigraphy in the assessment of spondylolysis in patients attending a sports injury clinic. Clin Radiol. 1988 May. 39(3):269-72. [Medline].

  92. Hambly MF, Wiltse LL, Peek RD. Spondylolisthesis. Williams L, Lin P, eds. The Spine in Sports. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1996. 157-63.

  93. Ivanov AA, Faizan A, Ebraheim NA, Yeasting R, Goel VK. The effect of removing the lateral part of the pars interarticularis on stress distribution at the neural arch in lumbar foraminal microdecompression at L3-L4 and L4-L5: anatomic and finite element investigations. Spine. 2007 Oct 15. 32(22):2462-6. [Medline].

  94. Kurd MF, Patel D, Norton R, Picetti G, Friel B, Vaccaro AR. Nonoperative treatment of symptomatic spondylolysis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 Dec. 20(8):560-4. [Medline].

  95. Libson E, Bloom RA, Dinari G. Symptomatic and asymptomatic spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in young adults. Int Orthop. 1982. 6(4):259-61. [Medline].

  96. Muschik M, Hahnel H, Robinson PN, Perka C, Muschik C. Competitive sports and the progression of spondylolisthesis. J Pediatr Orthop. 1996 May-Jun. 16(3):364-9. [Medline].

  97. Raby N, Mathews S. Symptomatic spondylolysis: correlation of CT and SPECT with clinical outcome. Clin Radiol. 1993 Aug. 48(2):97-9. [Medline].

  98. Rossi F. Spondylolysis, spondylolisthesis and sports. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1978 Dec. 18(4):317-40. [Medline].

  99. Sairyo K, Katoh S, Takata Y, Terai T, Yasui N, Goel VK, et al. MRI signal changes of the pedicle as an indicator for early diagnosis of spondylolysis in children and adolescents: a clinical and biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Jan 15. 31(2):206-11. [Medline].

  100. Sairyo K, Sakai T, Yasui N. Conservative treatment of lumbar spondylolysis in childhood and adolescence: the radiological signs which predict healing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Feb. 91(2):206-9. [Medline].

  101. Soler T, Calderon C. The prevalence of spondylolysis in the Spanish elite athlete. Am J Sports Med. 2000 Jan-Feb. 28(1):57-62. [Medline].

  102. Stewart TD. The age incidence of neural-arch defects in Alaskan natives, considered from the standpoint of etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1953 Oct. 35-A(4):937-50. [Medline]. [Full Text].

 
Previous
Next
 
Table 1. Outline of the Treatment Strategy Based on Results of Plain Radiographs and SPECT Scanning in the Evaluation of Defects of the Pars Interarticularis in Patients Clinically Suspected of Having Symptomatic Pars Interarticularis Lesions
Plain Radiograph SPECT Scan Interpretation Management
Negative Negative Pathology other than pars defect should be suspected Further investigation of cause of back pain should be performed (eg, MRI)
Negative Positive Early pars interarticularis fracture Conservative management in form of rest, +/– bracing
Positive Healing Spondylolysis Conservative management in the form of rest and bracing
Positive Negative Pseudoarthrosis or old unhealed fracture Consider surgical intervention for stabilization to prevent spondylolisthesis and to relieve pain. Consider further investigation to rule out alternative pathology.
Previous
Next
 
 
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.