Pooria Hosseini, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Robert K. Eastlack, Ramin Bagheri, Enrique Vargas, Stacie Tran and Behrooz A. Akbarnia
Sagittal malalignment decreases patients’ quality of life and may require surgical correction to achieve realignment goals. High-risk posterior-based osteotomy techniques are the current standard treatment for addressing sagittal malalignment. More recently, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, anterior column realignment (ALIF ACR) has been introduced as an alternative for correction of sagittal deformity. The objective of this paper was to report clinical and radiographic results for patients treated using the ALIF-ACR technique.
A retrospective study of 39 patients treated with ALIF ACR was performed. Patient demographics, operative details, radiographic parameters, neurological assessments, outcome measures, and preoperative, postoperative, and mean 1-year follow-up complications were studied.
The patient population comprised 39 patients (27 females and 12 males) with a mean follow-up of 13.3 ± 4.7 months, mean age of 66.1 ± 11.6 years, and mean body mass index of 27.3 ± 6.2 kg/m2. The mean number of ALIF levels treated was 1.5 ± 0.5. Thirty-three (84.6%) of 39 patients underwent posterior spinal fixation and 33 (84.6%) of 39 underwent posterior column osteotomy, of which 20 (60.6%) of 33 procedures were performed at the level of the ALIF ACR. Pelvic tilt, sacral slope, and pelvic incidence were not statistically significantly different between the preoperative and postoperative periods and between the preoperative and 1-year follow-up periods (except for PT between the preoperative and 1-year follow-up, p = 0.018). Sagittal vertical axis, T-1 spinopelvic inclination, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch, intradiscal angle, and motion segment angle all improved from the preoperative to postoperative period and the preoperative to 1-year follow-up (p < 0.05). The changes in motion segment angle and intradiscal angle achieved in the ALIF-ACR group without osteotomy compared with the ALIF-ACR group with osteotomy at the level of ACR were not statistically significant. Total visual analog score, Oswestry Disability Index, and Scoliosis Research Society–22 scores all improved from preoperative to postoperative and preoperative to 1-year follow-up. Fourteen patients (35.9%) experienced 26 complications (15 major and 11 minor). Eleven patients required reoperation. The most common complication was proximal junctional kyphosis (6/26 complications, 23%) followed by vertebral body/endplate fracture (3/26, 12%).
This study showed satisfactory radiographic and clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up. Proximal junctional kyphosis was the most common complication followed by fracture, complications that are commonly associated with sagittal realignment surgery and may not be mitigated by the anterior approach.
Raqeeb M. Haque, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Yousef Ahmed, Tarek Y. El Ahmadieh, Michael Y. Wang, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Juan S. Uribe, David O. Okonkwo, Robert K. Eastlack, Neel Anand, Adam S. Kanter, Frank La Marca, Behrooz A. Akbarnia, Paul Park, Virginie Lafage, Jamie S. Terran, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Eric Klineberg, Vedat Deviren and Richard G. Fessler
Various surgical approaches, including open, minimally invasive, and hybrid techniques, have gained momentum in the management of adult spinal deformity. However, few data exist on the radiographic outcomes of different surgical techniques. The objective of this study was to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of the surgical techniques used in the treatment of adult spinal deformity.
The authors conducted a retrospective review of two adult spinal deformity patient databases, a prospective open surgery database and a retrospective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and hybrid surgery database. The time frame of enrollment in this study was from 2007 to 2012. Spinal deformity patients were stratified into 3 surgery groups: MIS, hybrid surgery, and open surgery. The following pre- and postoperative radiographic parameters were assessed: lumbar major Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI−LL), sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic tilt. Scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and a visual analog scale (VAS) for both back and leg pain were also obtained from each patient.
Of the 234 patients with adult spinal deformity, 184 patients had pre- and postoperative radiographs and were thus included in the study (MIS, n = 42; hybrid, n = 33; open, n = 109). Patients were a mean of 61.7 years old and had a mean body mass index of 26.9 kg/m2. Regarding radiographic outcomes, the MIS group maintained a significantly smaller mean lumbar Cobb angle (13.1°) after surgery compared with the open group (20.4°, p = 0.002), while the hybrid group had a significantly larger lumbar curve correction (26.6°) compared with the MIS group (18.8°, p = 0.045). The mean change in the PI−LL was larger for the hybrid group (20.6°) compared with the open (10.2°, p = 0.023) and MIS groups (5.5°, p = 0.003). The mean sagittal vertical axis correction was greater for the open group (25 mm) compared with the MIS group (≤ 1 mm, p = 0.008). Patients in the open group had a significantly larger postoperative thoracic kyphosis (41.45°) compared with the MIS patients (33.5°, p = 0.005). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of pre- and postoperative mean ODI and VAS scores at the 1-year follow-up. However, patients in the MIS group had much lower estimated blood loss and transfusion rates compared with patients in the hybrid or open groups (p < 0.001). Operating room time was significantly longer with the hybrid group compared with the MIS and open groups (p < 0.001). Major complications occurred in 14% of patients in the MIS group, 14% in the hybrid group, and 45% in the open group (p = 0.032).
This study provides valuable baseline characteristics of radiographic parameters among 3 different surgical techniques used in the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Each technique has advantages, but much like any surgical technique, the positive and negative elements must be considered when tailoring a treatment to a patient. Minimally invasive surgical techniques can result in clinical outcomes at 1 year comparable to those obtained from hybrid and open surgical techniques.