You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine x
  • By Author: Mundis, Gregory M. x
  • By Author: Akbarnia, Behrooz A. x
Clear All
Free access

Khoi D. Than, Paul Park, Kai-Ming Fu, Stacie Nguyen, Michael Y. Wang, Dean Chou, Pierce D. Nunley, Neel Anand, Richard G. Fessler, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Shay Bess, Behrooz A. Akbarnia, Vedat Deviren, Juan S. Uribe, Frank La Marca, Adam S. Kanter, David O. Okonkwo, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Praveen V. Mummaneni and the International Spine Study Group


Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques are increasingly used to treat adult spinal deformity. However, standard minimally invasive spinal deformity techniques have a more limited ability to restore sagittal balance and match the pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) than traditional open surgery. This study sought to compare “best” versus “worst” outcomes of MIS to identify variables that may predispose patients to postoperative success.


A retrospective review of minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery cases was performed to identify parameters in the 20% of patients who had the greatest improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores versus those in the 20% of patients who had the least improvement in ODI scores at 2 years' follow-up.


One hundred four patients met the inclusion criteria, and the top 20% of patients in terms of ODI improvement at 2 years (best group, 22 patients) were compared with the bottom 20% (worst group, 21 patients). There were no statistically significant differences in age, body mass index, pre- and postoperative Cobb angles, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, levels fused, operating room time, and blood loss between the best and worst groups. However, the mean preoperative ODI score was significantly higher (worse disability) at baseline in the group that had the greatest improvement in ODI score (58.2 vs 39.7, p < 0.001). There was no difference in preoperative PI-LL mismatch (12.8° best vs 19.5° worst, p = 0.298). The best group had significantly less postoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA; 3.4 vs 6.9 cm, p = 0.043) and postoperative PI-LL mismatch (10.4° vs 19.4°, p = 0.027) than the worst group. The best group also had better postoperative visual analog scale back and leg pain scores (p = 0.001 and p = 0.046, respectively).


The authors recommend that spinal deformity surgeons using MIS techniques focus on correcting a patient's PI-LL mismatch to within 10° and restoring SVA to < 5 cm. Restoration of these parameters seems to impact which patients will attain the greatest degree of improvement in ODI outcomes, while the spines of patients who do the worst are not appropriately corrected and may be fused into a fixed sagittal plane deformity.

Restricted access

Pooya Javidan, Nima Kabirian, Gregory M. Mundis Jr. and Behrooz A. Akbarnia

The authors report a case of progressive congenital kyphoscoliosis in which the patient, a boy, originally underwent combined anterior and instrumented posterior spinal fusion at the age of 7 years and 3 months. Early proximal junctional kyphosis and implant failure mandated proximal extension of implants with 2 new rods connected to the old caudad short rods. At the 3-year follow-up, clinical and CT assessment revealed a thoracolumbar pseudarthrosis for which the patient underwent a 2-stage procedure without complication. Recordings of somatosensory evoked potentials intraoperatively were normal. Twelve hours after surgery, his neurological status started to progressively deteriorate. The patient was brought to the operating room, and the initially achieved correction was reversed by an apex-only exposure of the 4-rod system. After surgery the patient started to show progressive improvement in his neurological function. A final myelography was performed and showed free passage of the dye without evidence of obstruction. Clinically, the patient continued to improve and at his 3-month follow-up had near-complete resolution of his neurological deficits. Findings on his physical examination were normal at the final 12-year follow-up.

Despite normal findings on intraoperative neuromonitoring, a delayed neurological deficit can occur after complex spine reconstruction. Preoperative risk assessment, surgical approach, and instrumentation deserve careful attention. Advantages of a 4-rod construct are discussed in this case.

Restricted access

Juan S. Uribe, Donald A. Smith, Elias Dakwar, Ali A. Baaj, Gregory M. Mundis, Alexander W. L. Turner, G. Bryan Cornwall and Behrooz A. Akbarnia


In the surgical treatment of spinal deformities, the importance of restoring lumbar lordosis is well recognized. Smith-Petersen osteotomies (SPOs) yield approximately 10° of lordosis per level, whereas pedicle subtraction osteotomies result in as much as 30° increased lumbar lordosis. Recently, selective release of the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) and placement of lordotic interbody grafts using the minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach (XLIF) has been performed as an attempt to increase lumbar lordosis while avoiding the morbidity of osteotomy. The objective of the present study was to measure the effect of the selective release of the ALL and varying degrees of lordotic implants placed using the XLIF approach on segmental lumbar lordosis in cadaveric specimens between L-1 and L-5.


Nine adult fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens were placed in the lateral decubitus position. Lateral radiographs were obtained at baseline and after 4 interventions at each level as follows: 1) placement of a standard 10° lordotic cage, 2) ALL release and placement of a 10° lordotic cage, 3) ALL release and placement of a 20° lordotic cage, and 4) ALL release and placement of a 30° lordotic cage. All four cages were implanted sequentially at each interbody level between L-1 and L-5. Before and after each intervention, segmental lumbar lordosis was measured in all specimens at each interbody level between L-1 and L-5 using the Cobb method on lateral radiography.


The mean baseline segmental lordotic angles at L1–2, L2–3, L3–4, and L4–5 were –3.8°, 3.8°, 7.8°, and 22.6°, respectively. The mean lumbar lordosis was 29.4°. Compared with baseline, the mean postimplantation increase in segmental lordosis in all levels combined was 0.9° in Intervention 1 (10° cage without ALL release); 4.1° in Intervention 2 (ALL release with 10° cage); 9.5° in Intervention 3 (ALL release with 20° cage); and 11.6° in Intervention 4 (ALL release with 30° cage). Foraminal height in the same sequence of conditions increased by 6.3%, 4.6%, 8.8% and 10.4%, respectively, while central disc height increased by 16.1%, 22.3%, 52.0% and 66.7%, respectively. Following ALL release and placement of lordotic cages at all 4 lumbar levels, the average global lumbar lordosis increase from preoperative lordosis was 3.2° using 10° cages, 12.0° using 20° cages, and 20.3° using 30° cages. Global lumbar lordosis with the cages at 4 levels exhibited a negative correlation with preoperative global lordosis (10°, R = −0.756; 20°, −0.730; and 30°, R = −0.437).


Combined ALL release and placement of increasingly lordotic lateral interbody cages leads to progressive gains in segmental lordosis in the lumbar spine. Mean global lumbar lordosis similarly increased with increasingly lordotic cages, although the effect with a single cage could not be evaluated. Greater global lordosis was achieved with smaller preoperative lordosis. The mean maximum increase in segmental lordosis of 11.6° followed ALL release and placement of the 30° cage.