The impact of age on surgical goals for spinopelvic alignment in minimally invasive surgery for adult spinal deformity

Restricted access

OBJECTIVE

Achieving appropriate spinopelvic alignment in deformity surgery has been correlated with improvement in pain and disability. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have been used to treat adult spinal deformity (ASD); however, there is concern for inadequate sagittal plane correction. Because age can influence the degree of sagittal correction required, the purpose of this study was to analyze whether obtaining optimal spinopelvic alignment is required in the elderly to obtain clinical improvement.

METHODS

A multicenter database of ASD patients was queried. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years; an MIS component as part of the index procedure; at least one of the following: pelvic tilt (PT) > 20°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 50 mm, pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch > 10°, or coronal curve > 20°; and minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients were stratified into younger (< 65 years) and older (≥ 65 years) cohorts. Within each cohort, patients were categorized into aligned (AL) or mal-aligned (MAL) subgroups based on postoperative radiographic measurements. Mal-alignment was defined as a PI-LL > 10° or SVA > 50 mm. Pre- and postoperative radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 185 patients, 107 were in the younger cohort and 78 in the older cohort. Based on postoperative radiographs, 36 (33.6%) of the younger patients were in the AL subgroup and 71 (66.4%) were in the MAL subgroup. The older patients were divided into 2 subgroups based on alignment; there were 26 (33.3%) patients in the AL and 52 (66.7%) in the MAL subgroups. Overall, patients within both younger and older cohorts significantly improved with regard to postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. In the younger cohort, there were no significant differences in postoperative VAS back and leg pain scores between the AL and MAL subgroups. However, the postoperative ODI score of 37.9 in the MAL subgroup was significantly worse than the ODI score of 28.5 in the AL subgroup (p = 0.019). In the older cohort, there were no significant differences in postoperative VAS back and leg pain score or ODI between the AL and MAL subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS techniques did not achieve optimal spinopelvic alignment in most cases. However, age appears to impact the degree of sagittal correction required. In older patients, optimal spinopelvic alignment thresholds did not need to be achieved to obtain similar symptomatic improvement. Conversely, in younger patients stricter adherence to optimal spinopelvic alignment thresholds may be needed.

https://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/2018.4.SPINE171153

ABBREVIATIONS AL = aligned; ASD = adult spinal deformity; LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusion; MAL = mal-aligned; MIS = minimally invasive surgery; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PI-LL = pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis mismatch; PT = pelvic tilt; SVA = sagittal vertical axis; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; VAS = visual analog scale.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Paul Park: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. ppark@med.umich.edu.INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online August 10, 2018; DOI: 10.3171/2018.4.SPINE171153.Disclosures Dr. Park: consultant for Globus, NuVasive, Medtronic, and AlloSource; and royalties from Globus. Dr. Fu: consultant for SI-Bone and 4Web. Dr. Mummaneni: consultant for DePuy Spine, Globus, and Stryker; direct stock ownership in Spinicity/ISD; statistical analysis for study/writing or editorial assistance on manuscript from ISSG; support of non–study-related clinical or research effort from NREF; royalties from DePuy Spine, Springer Publishing, and Thieme Publishing; and honoraria from AOSpine. Dr. Uribe: consultant for NuVasive. Dr. Wang: consultant for DePuy Synthes Spine, K2M, Spineology, Stryker, and Globus; direct stock ownership in ISD; patent holder with DePuy Synthes Spine; and clinical or research support for this study from the Department of Defense. Dr. Nunley: direct stock ownership in Amedica Corp., Paradigm Spine, and Spineology; patent holder with K2M and LDR Spine; consultant for K2M; and speakers’ bureau for K2M and LDR Spine. Dr. Okonkwo: consultant for and royalties from NuVasive and Zimmer Biomet. Dr. Shaffrey: consultant for Medtronic, NuVasive, Zimmer Biomet; direct stock ownership in NuVasive; and patents with and royalties from Medtronic, NuVasive, and Zimmer Biomet. Dr. Mundis: consultant for NuVasive, K2M, and AlloSource; and patent holder with NuVasive and K2M. Dr. Chou: consultant for Medtronic and Globus. Dr. Eastlack: consultant for NuVasive, Aesulap, SeaSpine, K2M, and Titan; and ownership in NuVasive, Alphatec, and SeaSpine. Dr. Anand: consultant for Medtronic; direct stock ownership in Globus Medical and Medtronic; patent holder with Medtronic; and royalties from Medtronic, Globus Medical, and Elsevier. Dr. Than: consultant for Bioventus. Dr. Zavatsky: ownership in Vivex and Innovative Surgical Solutions; consultant for DePuy Synthes Spine, Stryker, Zimmer Biomet, Innovasis, and Integrity; and royalties from Zimmer Biomet.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Ames CPSmith JSScheer JKBess SBederman SSDeviren V: Impact of spinopelvic alignment on decision making in deformity surgery in adults: a review. J Neurosurg Spine 16:5475642012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Anand NBaron EMKhandehroo BKahwaty S: Long-term 2- to 5-year clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:156615752013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Asai YTsutsui SOka HYoshimura NHashizume HYamada H: Sagittal spino-pelvic alignment in adults: the Wakayama Spine Study. PLoS One 12:e01786972017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Dakwar ECardona RFSmith DAUribe JS: Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 28(3):E82010

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Gelb DELenke LGBridwell KHBlanke KMcEnery KW: An analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in 100 asymptomatic middle and older aged volunteers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:135113581995

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Glassman SDBerven SBridwell KHorton WDimar JR: Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:6826882005

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Hammerberg EMWood KB: Sagittal profile of the elderly. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:44502003

  • 8

    Lafage RSchwab FChallier VHenry JKGum JSmith J: Defining spino-pelvic alignment thresholds: should operative goals in adult spinal deformity surgery account for age? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:62682016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Park POkonkwo DONguyen SMundis GM JrThan KDDeviren V: Can a minimal clinically important difference be achieved in elderly patients with adult spinal deformity who undergo minimally invasive spinal surgery? World Neurosurg 86:1681722016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Park PWang MYLafage VNguyen SZiewacz JOkonkwo DO: Comparison of two minimally invasive surgery strategies to treat adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine 22:3743802015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Schwab FLafage VPatel AFarcy JP: Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:182818332009

  • 12

    Schwab FPatel AUngar BFarcy JPLafage V: Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:222422312010

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Schwab FJBlondel BBess SHostin RShaffrey CISmith JS: Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E803E8122013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Smith JSLafage VShaffrey CISchwab FLafage RHostin R: Outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity: A prospective, multicenter, propensity-matched cohort assessment with minimum 2-year follow-up. Neurosurgery 78:8518612016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Uddin OMHaque RSugrue PAAhmed YMEl Ahmadieh TYPress JM: Cost minimization in treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine 23:7988062015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Wang MYMummaneni PV: Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Neurosurg Focus 28(3):E92010

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Wang MYMummaneni PVFu KMAnand NOkonkwo DOKanter AS: Less invasive surgery for treating adult spinal deformities: ceiling effects for deformity correction with 3 different techniques. Neurosurg Focus 36(5):E122014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 569 553 46
Full Text Views 255 213 10
PDF Downloads 259 208 14
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar