Postlaminectomy lumbopelvic sagittal changes in patients with developmental lumbar spinal stenosis grouped into Roussouly lumbopelvic sagittal profiles: 2- to 10-year prospective follow-up

View More View Less
  • 1 Scientific Council of Orthopedics, Baghdad, Iraq;
  • | 2 Connecticut Neurosurgery and Spine Associates, Windsor, Connecticut; and
  • | 3 Department of Neurosurgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

Roussouly lumbopelvic sagittal profiles are associated with distinct pathologies or distinct natural histories and prognoses. The associations between developmental lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and native lumbopelvic sagittal profiles are unknown. Moreover, the relative effects of multilevel decompression on lumbar sagittal alignment, geometrical parameters of the pelvis, and compensatory mechanisms for each of the Roussouly subtypes are unknown. This study aimed to explore the association between DLSS and native lumbar lordosis (LL) subtypes. It also attempts to understand the natural history of postlaminectomy lumbopelvic sagittal changes and compensatory mechanisms for each of the Roussouly subtypes and to define the critical lumbar segment or specific lordosis arc that is recruited after relief of the stenosis effect.

METHODS

A total of 418 patients with multilevel DLSS were grouped into various Roussouly subtypes, and lumbopelvic sagittal parameters were prospectively compared at follow-up intervals of preoperative to < 2 years, 2 to < 5 years, and 5 to ≥ 10 years after laminectomy. The variables analyzed included LL, upper lordosis arc from L1 to L4, lower lordosis arc from L4 to S1, and segmental lordosis from L1 to S1. Pelvic parameters included pelvic incidence, sacral slope, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence minus LL values.

RESULTS

Of the 329 patients who were followed up throughout this study, 33.7% had Roussouly type 1 native lordosis, whereas the incidence rates of types 2, 3, and 4 were 33.4%, 21.9%, and 10.9%, respectively. LL was not reduced in any of the Roussouly subtypes after multilevel decompressions. Instead, LL increased by 4.5° (SD 11.9°—from 27.3° [SD 11.5°] to 31.8° [SD 9.8°]) in Roussouly type 1 and by 3.1° (SD 11.6°—from 41.3° [SD 9.5°] to 44.4° [SD = 9.7°]) in Roussouly type 2. The other Roussouly types showed no significant changes. Pelvic tilt decreased significantly—by 2.8°, whereas sacral slope increased significantly—by 2.9° in Roussouly type 1 and by 1.7° in Roussouly type 2. The critical lumbar segment that recruits LL differs between Roussouly subtypes. Increments and changes were sustained until the final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings are important in predicting patient prognosis, LL evolution, and the need for prophylactic or corrective deformity surgery. Multilevel involvement in DLSS and the high prevalence of Roussouly types 1 and 2 suggest that spinal canal dimensions are closely linked to the developmental evolution of LL.

ABBREVIATIONS

DLSS = developmental lumbar spinal stenosis; LL = lumbar lordosis; PI = pelvic incidence; PI–LL = PI minus LL; PT = pelvic tilt; SS = sacral slope.

Illustration from Lee et al. (pp 822–829). Copyright Sun Joo Kim. Published with permission.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Cheung JPY, Ng KKM, Cheung PWH, Samartzis D, Cheung KMC. Radiographic indices for lumbar developmental spinal stenosis. Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2017;12:3.

  • 2

    Cheung JP, Samartzis D, Shigematsu H, Cheung KM. Defining clinically relevant values for developmental spinal stenosis: a large-scale magnetic resonance imaging study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2014;39(13):10671076.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Lee CS, Lee CK, Kim YT, Hong YM, Yoo JH. Dynamic sagittal imbalance of the spine in degenerative flat back: significance of pelvic tilt in surgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2001;26(18):20292035.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Chung NS, Lee HD, Jeon CH. Degenerative changes of sagittal alignment in patients with Roussouly type 1. Spine Deform. 2020;8(6):13251331.

  • 5

    Lafage R, Ferrero E, Henry JK, Challier V, Diebo B, Liabaud B, et al. Validation of a new computer-assisted tool to measure spino-pelvic parameters. Spine J. 2015;15(12):24932502.

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

    Griffith JF, Huang J, Law SW, Xiao F, Leung JC, Wang D, Shi L. Population reference range for developmental lumbar spinal canal size. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2016;6(6):671679.

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

    Kitab SA, Alsulaiman AM, Benzel EC. Anatomic radiological variations in developmental lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective, control-matched comparative analysis. Spine J. 2014;14(5):808815.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Kitab S, Habboub G, Abdulkareem SB, Alimidhatti MB, Benzel E. Redefining lumbar spinal stenosis as a developmental syndrome: does age matter? J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(3):357365.

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

    Kitab S, Lee BS, Benzel EC. Redefining lumbar spinal stenosis as a developmental syndrome: an MRI-based multivariate analysis of findings in 709 patients throughout the 16- to 82-year age spectrum. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;29(6):654660.

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

    Lai MKL, Cheung PWH, Cheung JPY. A systematic review of developmental lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(9):21732187.

  • 11

    Lai MKL, Cheung PWH, Samartzis D, Cheung JPY. Prevalence and definition of multilevel lumbar developmental spinal stenosis. Global Spine J. Published online November 23, 2020. doi:10.1177/2192568220975384

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Roussouly P, Pinheiro-Franco JL. Biomechanical analysis of the spino-pelvic organization and adaptation in pathology. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(suppl 5):609618.

  • 13

    Verbiest H. Pathomorphologic aspects of developmental lumbar stenosis. Orthop Clin North Am. 1975;6(1):177196.

  • 14

    Verbiest H. Results of surgical treatment of idiopathic developmental stenosis of the lumbar vertebral canal. A review of twenty-seven years’ experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1977;59(2):181188.

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

    Verbiest H. Fallacies of the present definition, nomenclature, and classification of the stenoses of the lumbar vertebral canal. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).1976;1(4):217225.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Bayerl SH, Pöhlmann F, Finger T, Franke J, Woitzik J, Vajkoczy P. The sagittal spinal profile type: a principal precondition for surgical decision making in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(5):552559.

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

    Sparrey CJ, Bailey JF, Safaee M, Clark AJ, Lafage V, Schwab F, et al. Etiology of lumbar lordosis and its pathophysiology: a review of the evolution of lumbar lordosis, and the mechanics and biology of lumbar degeneration. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E1.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Jeon CH, Lee HD, Lee YS, Seo HS, Chung NS. Change in sagittal profiles after decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a 2-year preliminary report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2015;40(5):E279E285.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Suzuki H, Endo K, Kobayashi H, Tanaka H, Yamamoto K. Total sagittal spinal alignment in patients with lumbar canal stenosis accompanied by intermittent claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2010;35(9):E344E346.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Hikata T, Watanabe K, Fujita N, Iwanami A, Hosogane N, Ishii K, et al. Impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcomes after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis without coronal imbalance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(4):451458.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Lai MKL, Cheung PWH, Samartzis D, Karppinen J, Cheung KMC, Cheung JPY. Clinical implications of lumbar developmental spinal stenosis on back pain, radicular leg pain, and disability. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(1):131140.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Ogura Y, Shinozaki Y, Kobayashi Y, Kitagawa T, Yonezawa Y, Takahashi Y, et al. Impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life after decompression surgery without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(4):470475.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Laouissat F, Sebaaly A, Gehrchen M, Roussouly P. Classification of normal sagittal spine alignment: refounding the Roussouly classification. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(8):20022011.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J. Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2005;30(3):346353.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Roussouly P, Nnadi C. Sagittal plane deformity: an overview of interpretation and management. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(11):18241836.

  • 26

    Zhang G, Yang Y, Hai Y, Li J, Xie X, Feng S. Analysis of lumbar sagittal curvature in spinal decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis patients under Roussouly classification. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:8078641.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, Tansey R, Wardlaw D, Smith FW, Kulik G. Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2010;35(21):19191924.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G, Hecquet J, Marty C. Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J. 1998;7(2):99103.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Jalovaara P, Lähde S, Iikko E, Niinimäki T, Puranen J, Lindholm RV. The significance of residual stenosis after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1989;78(4):304308.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Hey HWD, Tan KA, Thadani VN, Liu GK, Wong HK. Characterization of sagittal spine alignment with reference to the gravity line and vertebral slopes: an analysis of different Roussouly curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2020;45(9):E481E488.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Zhang F, Zhang W, Zhang R, Chen B, Shang X, Han J, Li X. Modified minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under microscopic view to achieve bilateral decompression and fusion through a single approach to treat developmental lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Neurosci. 2021;84:4649.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Whitcome KK, Shapiro LJ, Lieberman DE. Fetal load and the evolution of lumbar lordosis in bipedal hominins. Nature. 2007;450(7172):10751078.

  • 33

    Lee MJ, Bransford RJ, Bellabarba C, Chapman JR, Cohen AM, Harrington RM, Ching RP. The effect of bilateral laminotomy versus laminectomy on the motion and stiffness of the human lumbar spine: a biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2010;35(19):17891793.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Videbaek TS, Bünger CE, Henriksen M, Neils E, Christensen FB. Sagittal spinal balance after lumbar spinal fusion: the impact of anterior column support results from a randomized clinical trial with an eight- to thirteen-year radiographic follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2011;36(3):183191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Cheung PWH, Fong HK, Wong CS, Cheung JPY. The influence of developmental spinal stenosis on the risk of re-operation on an adjacent segment after decompression-only surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(2):154161.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 196 196 196
Full Text Views 113 113 113
PDF Downloads 188 188 188
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0