Can we use shorter constructs while maintaining satisfactory sagittal plane alignment for adult spinal deformity?

View More View Less
  • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dokkyo Medical University, Tochigi, Japan
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

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

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Issues with spinopelvic fixation for adult spinal deformity (ASD) include loss of the physiological mobility of the entire lumbar spine, perioperative complications, and medical costs. Little is known about the factors associated with successful short fusion for ASD. The authors evaluated radiographic and clinical outcomes after shorter fusion for different subtypes of ASD at 2 years postoperatively and examined factors associated with successful short fusion.

METHODS

This was a single-center study of 37 patients who underwent short fusion and a minimum 2 years of follow-up for ASD in which lumbar kyphosis was the main deformity. The exclusion criteria were 1) age < 40 years, 2) previous lumbar vertebral fracture, 3) severe osteoporosis, 4) T10–L2 kyphosis > 20°, 5) scoliotic deformity with an upper end vertebra (UEV) above T12, and 6) concomitant Parkinson’s disease or neurological disease. The surgical procedures, radiographic course, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were assessed, and correlations between radiographic parameters and postoperative ODI at 2 years were analyzed.

RESULTS

A mean of 3.5 levels were fused. The mean radiographic parameters preoperatively, at 2 weeks, and at 2 years, respectively, were as follows: coronal Cobb angle: 22.9°, 11.5°, and 12.6°; lumbar lordosis (LL): 12.9°, 35.8°, and 32.2°; pelvic incidence (PI) minus LL: 35.5°, 14.7°, and 19.2°; pelvic tilt: 29.4°, 23.1°, and 25.0°; and sagittal vertical axis 85.3, 36.7, and 59.2 mm. Abnormal proximal junctional kyphosis occurred in 8 cases. Revision surgery was performed to extend the length of fusion from a lower thoracic vertebra to the pelvis in 2 cases. The mean ODI scores preoperatively and at 2 years were 50.7% and 24.1%, respectively. Patient age, number of fused intervertebral segments, and radiographic parameters were analyzed by the stepwise method to identify factors contributing to the ODI score at 2 years, preoperative PI, and sagittal vertical axis at 2 years. On receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the minimal clinically important difference of ODI (15%) and preoperative PI, the cutoff value of the preoperative PI was 47° (area under the curve 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of subtypes of ASD in which lumbar kyphosis is the main deformity, if the PI is < 47°, then the use of short fusion preserving mobile intervertebral segments can produce adequate LL for the PI, improving both postoperative global spinal alignment and quality of life.

ABBREVIATIONS ADL = activities of daily living; ASD = adult spinal deformity; CVA = coronal vertical axis; HRQOL = health-related quality of life; LIF = lumbar interbody fusion; LIV = lower instrumented vertebra; LL = lumbar lordosis; MCID = minimal clinically important difference; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PI = pelvic incidence; PI-LL = PI minus LL; PJA = proximal junctional angle; PJK = proximal junctional kyphosis; PT = pelvic tilt; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SVA = sagittal vertical axis; TK = thoracic kyphosis; UEV = upper end vertebra; UIV = upper instrumented vertebra.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

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

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Hiroshi Moridaira: Dokkyo Medical University, Tochigi, Japan. morihey@dokkyomed.ac.jp.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online December 25, 2020; DOI: 10.3171/2020.7.SPINE20917.

Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

  • 1

    Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(6):682688.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Bridwell KH. Selection of instrumentation and fusion levels for scoliosis: where to start and where to stop. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1(1):18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Silva FE, Lenke LG. Adult degenerative scoliosis: evaluation and management. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E1.

  • 4

    Kuklo TR. Principles for selecting fusion levels in adult spinal deformity with particular attention to lumbar curves and double major curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(19)(suppl):S132S138.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Charosky S, Guigui P, Blamoutier A, Complications and risk factors of primary adult scoliosis surgery: a multicenter study of 306 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(8):693700.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Katayanagi J, Iida T, Hayamizu A, Effect of long spinal fusion including the pelvis on activities of daily living related to lumbar spinal function in adults with spinal deformity. J Orthop Sci. 2019;24(3):409414.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Fairbank JC. Oswestry Disability Index. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(2):239241.

  • 8

    Blondel B, Schwab F, Ungar B, Impact of magnitude and percentage of global sagittal plane correction on health-related quality of life at 2-years follow-up. Neurosurgery. 2012;71(2):341348.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Fakurnejad S, Scheer JK, Lafage V, The likelihood of reaching minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit at 2 years following a 3-column osteotomy: analysis of 140 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(3):340348.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(14):16431649.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Schwab F, Ungar B, Blondel B, Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(12):10771082.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Taneichi H. Update on pathology and surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity. J Orthop Sci. 2016;21(2):116123.

  • 13

    Mummaneni PV, Shaffrey CI, Lenke LG, The minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery algorithm: a reproducible rational framework for decision making in minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E6.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Yoshida G, Boissiere L, Larrieu D, Advantages and disadvantages of adult spinal deformity surgery and its impact on health-related quality of life. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(6):411419.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Blondel B, Wickman AM, Apazidis A, Selection of fusion levels in adults with spinal deformity: an update. Spine J. 2013;13(4):464474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Is the T9, T11, or L1 the more reliable proximal level after adult lumbar or lumbosacral instrumented fusion to L5 or S1? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(24):26532661.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Wang MY, Berven SH. Lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(2)(suppl 1):ONS140ONS146.

  • 18

    Strom RG, Bae J, Mizutani J, Lateral interbody fusion combined with open posterior surgery for adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(6):697705.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Yagi M, Hosogane N, Okada E, Factors affecting the postoperative progression of thoracic kyphosis in surgically treated adult patients with lumbar degenerative scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(8):E521E528.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 483 483 455
Full Text Views 65 65 60
PDF Downloads 41 41 36
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0