Outcomes in Lumbar Fusion Patients Stratified by the Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) Classification System

TL;DR

This study evaluates how the CARDS classification system affects outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Contribution

The study introduces the CARDS classification system as a new framework for stratifying degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis patients.

Findings

Patients across CARDS groups showed similar baseline demographics and clinical outcomes.

Interbody utilization varied significantly among CARDS groups, with higher rates in Type B and D patients.

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were similar across CARDS groups at follow-up.

Abstract

Background and objective

The Meyerding classification system remains the most common classification system for spondylolisthesis based on the percentages of vertebral translation. However, the majority of patients with degenerative disease fall into Grade 1, limiting its utility in this subset of patients. The Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification system provides a simple radiographic framework for classifying degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients by incorporating disc height, kyphosis, and anterior translation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes vary across different CARDS groups in patients undergoing one- or two-level lumbar fusion for DLS.

Methods

The patients were classified into one of the following four CARDS groups - Type A: advanced disc space collapse with no evidence of kyphosis; Type B: partially preserved disc space with less than 5.0 mm of translation; Type C: partially preserved disc space with greater than 5.0 mm of translation; and Type D: kyphotic alignment. Univariate analyses were performed to compare demographics, symptoms, clinical outcomes, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical (PH) and mental health (MH) scores across groups.

Results

Ninety-one patients were included in the study. Based on the CARDS classification, there were three (3%) Type A patients, 25 (28%) Type B, 58 (64%) Type C, and five (5%) Type D. No significant differences in baseline demographics, symptom duration, or PROMIS scores were observed across groups. Interbody utilization varied, ranging from 19% in CARDS C (n=11) to 60% in CARDS B (n=15) and D (n=3) patients (p=0.005). Thirty-day clinical outcomes were similar across groups. At an average follow-up of 8.9 months, improvements in PROMIS PH and MH scores and rates of clinically significant improvement were similar across groups.

Conclusions

Based on our findings, patients undergoing lumbar fusion for DLS present with similar demographic and clinical characteristics and experience similar clinical and patient-reported outcomes when stratified using the CARDS classification system. Posterolateral fusion (PLF) can be effective for various radiographic presentations of DLS. Further research is warranted to assess the utility of CARDS in preoperative planning.