What Are the Benefits of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion on the Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Deformity

Factors and Experiences Associated With Unscheduled Hospital Readmission After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case-Controlled Study

PURPOSE

Understanding the risk factors associated with unscheduled readmission following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is crucial for mitigating the occurrence of these costly events. This study aims to ascertain the incidence and factors of unscheduled hospital readmission subsequent to LLIF.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent LLIF at our institution from March 2016 to February 2023. Instances of unscheduled hospital readmission after LLIF were meticulously recorded, including baseline demographics, characteristics of spine pathology, surgical interventions, duration between two hospitalizations, and hospitalization costs and duration. Reasons for readmission were categorized based on their etiology. A case-control methodology was employed to compare unscheduled hospital readmission patients against planned readmission patients due to staged surgery. Parametric data were analyzed with a two-tailed T-test, nonparametric data with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and categorical data with the χ 2 test.

RESULTS

A total of 1521 patients who received LLIF at our institution were included in the study. A total of 59 patients (3.88%) were unscheduled readmitted due to adjacent segment disease (ASD), cage subsidence, the original surgical segments remaining narrow, spondylodiscitis, and pain. 51 patients (3.35%) experienced reoperation, predominantly attributable to ASD. Compared to planned readmission patients, unscheduled readmission patients tended to be younger, had a lower likelihood of having scoliosis, and were more likely to have short-segment surgery and higher initial hospitalization costs. Among unscheduled readmission patients, patients receiving short-segment surgery, as well as those who paid less during the initial hospitalization, demonstrated a higher likelihood of a 90-day readmission rate.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicated the heightened risks of unscheduled hospital readmission after LLIF. Taking targeted measures against these risk factors is expected to reduce the healthcare burden caused by unplanned readmissions in the future.

Prevalence and Clinical Impact of Coronal Malalignment Following Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgery (CMIS) for Adult Spinal Deformity Correction

Study DesignRetrospective study.ObjectivesTo determine prevalence and clinical importance of patients who had postoperative CM after CMIS for ASD correction.MethodsWe reviewed patients who underwent CMIS technique. Inclusion criteria were patients who were diagnosed with ASD, which is defined as having at least one of the following: coronal Cobb angle >20, SVA >50 mm, PI-LL >10, PT >20. They underwent >4 spinal levels fusion with CMIS technique and had at least 1-year follow-up. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative radiographs and clinical outcome measures (VAS, ODI, and SRS-22 scores) were used to make the comparisons.Results120 patients were included. Radiographic outcomes, including CVA, coronal Cobb angle, LSF curve, SVA, LL, and PI-LL, and clinical outcomes, were significantly improved postoperatively in each of the 3 preoperative subgroups (Bao type A, B, and C). At 1-year post-operation, 10 patients (12.4 %) of type A turned out to be CM, 4 patients (21.1%) of type B, and 8 patients (40%) of type C remained CM. Comparing coronally aligned (CA) to coronally mal-aligned patients at 1-year follow-up in each coronal subtype revealed that clinical and radiographic outcomes were comparable.ConclusionsCMIS technique significantly improves radiographic and clinical outcomes for ASD patients. Incidence rates of postoperative CM were similar to open surgery. Type C patients were at risk of postoperative CM than types A and B. However, most 1-year outcomes were not significantly different between postoperative CA and CM patients regardless of the preoperative coronal alignment characteristics except ODI scores in type A.

Anterior column realignment better restores sagittal alignment but carries higher risk of mechanical failures than lateral lumbar interbody fusion in patients with degenerative sagittal imbalance

BACKGROUND OF CONTEXT

Anterior column realignment (ACR), a modified lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), is an emerging, less invasive technique that allows greater lordosis correction by releasing anterior longitudinal ligament. However, long-term results have been poorly documented with regard to mechanical failure, such as proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and rod fracture (RF), and clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes, primarily mechanical failure, in patients with degenerative sagittal imbalance (DSI) treated with ACR versus LLIF alone.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients ≥60 years of age; severe DSI defined by pelvic incidence (PI) - lumbar lordosis (LL) ≥20°; performance of ≥2-level LLIF; and ≥5 total fused levels including the sacrum.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Mechanical failure such as PJK and RF; radiographic results; clinical outcomes METHODS: Enrolled patients were divided into two groups, based on whether their anterior reconstruction was accomplished with ACR or LLIF alone: ACR and LLIF groups. Mechanical failures were compared between the two groups as a composite outcome including PJK and /or RF. PJK was defined as proximal junctional angle (PJA) >28° and Δ PJA >22°. Only RFs developing at the level with corresponding procedures (ACR or LLIF) were included in the analysis. Logistic regression was performed to compare the relative risk of mechanical failure between the ACR and LLIF groups. The radiographic and clinical outcomes were also compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The final study cohort consisted of 210 patients. The mean age was 69.6 years, and there were 190 females (90.5%). There were 124 patients in the ACR group and 86 patients in the LLIF group. Perioperative changes for all sagittal parameters were significantly greater in the ACR group than in the LLIF group. Overall mechanical failure rates were significantly higher in the ACR group than in the LLIF group (32.3% vs 14.0%, p=.003). Multivariate regression analysis with adjusting potential confounders revealed that ACR carried a significantly higher risk of mechanical failure than LLIF (Odds ratio=5.6, 95% confidence interval=2.0-15.6, p<.001). The final clinical outcomes were worse in the ACR group than in the LLIF group.

CONCLUSION

ACR restored the sagittal malalignment more powerfully than did LLIF. However, compared to the LLIF, ACR was associated with a greater risk of mechanical failures and revision surgery. The final clinical outcomes in the ACR group were inferior to those in the LLIF group. Therefore, ACR should be left as a last resort for the cases where it is expected that an adequate correction cannot be achieved using LLIF alone. If ACR has to be performed, it is necessary to establish feasible surgical strategies to avoid mechanical failures.

Establishment of the prone transpsoas fusion surgery in Australia-a survey and analysis of major complications in early adopters

Background

Prone transpsoas (PTP) fusion is a single-position variant of direct transpsoas interbody reconstruction that is increasing in popularity in Australia. This technique provides simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior columns while maintaining the familiar prone position and utilising position-specific equipment. However, major vascular, visceral, and neurological complications associated with the procedure remain a concern for spine surgeons. Our study aims to elucidate the safety profile of PTP fusion among early adopters in Australia.

Methods

Australian surgeons interested in the PTP approach underwent surgical education and training prior to their first PTP procedure. All PTP-trained surgeons were invited to participate in the study through an online survey of 14 questions querying their PTP experience. Of the 20 PTP-trained surgeons, 16 responded to the survey, representing 293 out of 327 PTP surgeries completed in Australia from March 2023 to May 2024.

Results

The survey was completed by 16 surgeons (80%) from the Australian PTP community, encompassing 293 PTP surgeries (90%) completed. The surgeon cohort reported no major vascular or visceral complications. There are two cases (0.68%) of weakness of the psoas muscle, two cases (0.68%) of sustained motor deficits, and four cases (1.37%) of sensory deficits. Additionally, there are two cases (0.68%) of vertebral fractures or implant subsidence requiring re-operation and four cases (1.37%) of surgical site infections.

Conclusions

Our study shows the successful establishment of PTP procedure following a PTP surgical training model. The survey's high response rate reinforces the low complication rates encountered by our surgeons and adds to the safety profile of this novel procedure. Additionally, it underscores the significance of surgical education and training opportunities in minimally invasive spinal fusion techniques.

Advances in Lateral Interbody Fusion and Single Position Surgery

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is traditionally performed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position for interbody implant insertion and indirect decompression. In cases requiring 360-degree fusion or direct decompression, the patient is repositioned to the prone position during surgery, a technique referred to as dual-position LLIF (DP-L). To improve efficiency and eliminate the need for repositioning, surgeons have adopted single-position approaches, completing the entire procedure either in the lateral decubitus or prone position. This explores the advancements in LLIF and single-position LLIF. Comparing both single position lateral decubitus LLIF and single position prone (P-SPS) to the traditional DP-L. A narrative review of the literature on single-position surgery (SPS) LLIF was conducted to provide an overview of its key aspects and clinical applications. The review included studies comparing SPS lateral and SPS prone to DP-L, encompassing systematic reviews, meta-analyses, retrospective studies, and case series. Additional studies deemed relevant for a thorough review were also included. No randomized controlled trials were identified or included in this review. Lateral single-position surgery and P-SPS have shown reductions in operative times and hospital length of stay compared with DP LLIF. In addition, both techniques improved estimated blood loss, complication rates, and radiographic outcomes. However, the statistical significance of these findings varied inconsistently across the published studies. The development of LLIF represents a notable advancement in spine surgery. SPS builds on this foundation, offering potential improvements over the original technique. While SPS has demonstrated certain advantages, there remains room for further refinement and optimization in its application.

Anterior Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 in Hybrid Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Radiographic Results, Mechanical Complications, and Clinical Outcomes

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic results, mechanical complications, and clinical outcomes between anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1 (ALIF51 and PLIF51 groups, respectively) using a matched cohort of patients undergoing long fusion for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: Patients who underwent hybrid surgery of ≥5-level fusion to the pelvis with a minimum follow-up duration of 2 years were included. The baseline characteristics of the groups were controlled using a propensity score matching analysis. The radiographic results, mechanical complications such as proximal junctional kyphosis/failure and metal failure, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Results: In total, 79 patients were assigned to each group with comparable baseline data, except for a higher frequency of anterior column realignment procedures in the PLIF51 group than in the ALIF51 group (49.4% vs. 31.6%). At the last follow-up, L5-S1 segmental lordosis (SL) was significantly greater in the ALIF51 group than in the PLIF51 group (12.1° vs. 7.3°, p < 0.001). The final C7-sagittal vertical axis (SVA) was significantly smaller in the ALIF51 group than in the PLIF51 group (25.4 mm vs. 35.5 mm, p = 0.032). However, other global sagittal parameters were comparable between the groups. The mechanical complication rates, including metal failure at L5-S1, and the final clinical outcomes were comparable between the groups. Conclusions: ALIF51 has modest advantages over PLIF51 in terms of better restoring L5-S1 SL and C7-SVA with avoiding more invasive procedures above the L5-S1 levels. Other sagittal parameters, mechanical complication rates, and clinical outcomes did not differ between the groups.

Initial Efficacy After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Classified as Schizas Grade A to D

OBJECTIVE

This study was to evaluate the initial efficacy of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS), encompassing a spectrum of stenosis severity from minor to extreme cases.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed the outcomes of 43 patients with DLSS, involving 55 surgical segments, who underwent LLIF. Clinical efficacy and radiographic parameters were recorded during the perioperative period and at the final follow-up. Pursuant to the Schizas' classification criteria, the 55 surgical segments were categorized into 2 groups: the Schizas grade A or B group and the C or D group. Simultaneously, the 43 patients were divided into 2 groups: the minor-moderate stenosis (MM) group and the severe-extreme stenosis (SE) group. Comparative analyses were subsequently conducted.

RESULTS

All patients successfully underwent the LLIF procedure, without the need for additional posterior decompression surgery. Both 16 MM and 27 SE group patients demonstrated significant improvements in clinical efficacy scores compared to their preoperative baselines (P < 0.001). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the MM group and the SE group in postoperative clinical metrics (P > 0.05). Both 23 Schizas grade A or B and 32 C or D group segments exhibited significant postoperative improvements in radiographic parameter values (P < 0.001), with no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Under certain indications, patients with varying degrees of DLSS, ranging from mild to extreme, can achieve favorable outcomes through LLIF, and preoperative imaging revealing severe or extreme stenosis does not automatically disqualify patients from undergoing indirect decompression surgery.

Insufficient endplate-bone graft contact is a risk factor for high-grade cage subsidence occurring after lateral lumbar interbody fusion supplemented with lateral plate: An analysis of 121 cases

BACKGROUND

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive fusion technique that can be performed with lateral plate. Insufficient contact between the endplate and bone graft may result in cage subsidence. This study aimed to investigate the potential risk factor for high-grade cage subsidence (HCS) occurring after LLIF supplemented with lateral plate.

METHODS

Between June 2017 and February 2023, 121 patients (48 males, 73 females; mean age 63.0 years; minimum follow-up period 12 months) undergoing LLIF supplemented with lateral plate were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence of HCS was assessed, and patients were categorized into HCS group or non-HCS group based on the occurrence of HCS. A revision surgery of posterior pedicle screw fixation was performed in patients with cage subsidence and complained with intolerable back pain or radicular symptoms. Comparative analyses were performed on demographic characteristics, surgical variables, and parameters related to endplate-bone graft contact between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to identify the potential risk factors associated with HCS. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to calculate the cutoff values for the risk factors. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and radiographic fusion at the final follow-up was assessed based on the Bridwell grading system.

RESULTS

The HCS group comprised 12 patients, while the non-HCS group included 109 patients. The incidence of HCS occurring after LLIF supplemented with lateral plate was 9.9 %. Compared to non-HCS group, patients in HCS group had lower sagittal and coronal endplate-bone graft contact rates and larger cage-endplate angles. Low sagittal (OR, 1.099; 95 % CI, 1.033-1.169; P=0.003) and low coronal (OR, 1.149, 95 % CI, 1.061-1.243, P=0.001) endplate-bone graft contact rates were determined to be correlated with HCS. The cutoff value of the sagittal and coronal endplate-bone graft contact rate was 63.5 % and 60.9 %. Eleven (91.7 %) patients in HCS group underwent revision posterior pedicle screw fixation. Both HCS and non-HCS groups experienced significant improvements in ODI at the final follow-up, while there were no differences between groups. Ninety-five (87.2 %) patients in non-HCS group, and nine (81.8 %) of the 11 patients who underwent revision surgery in HCS group achieved radiographic fusion at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of HCS occurring after LLIF supplemented with lateral plate was 9.9%. Insufficient endplate-bone graft contact is an important risk factor of HCS, and sagittal and coronal endplate-bone graft contact rates can be used as effective predictors for HCS.

Short-Term Comparison Between Unilateral Versus Bilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in Short-Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Prospective Randomized Study

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES

No prospective studies have directly compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of unilateral vs bilateral instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). We compared the short-term radiographic, clinical outcomes, and some complications of the unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) (UPS) vs bilateral PPS (BPS) fixation in short-level spinal fusion with LLIF for LDD.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study of 33 patients who underwent UPS or BPS fixation after LLIF for LDD; 18 patients were assigned to the UPS group and 15 patients to the BPS group. Clinical outcomes, complication rates, and fusion rates were assessed.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, and level of surgery. Blood loss, length of hospital stay, and numeric rating scale score one year after surgery did not differ between groups. The operative time was longer in the BPS than UPS group (120.2 vs 88.8 min, respectively; P = .029). Both groups showed improvement in disc height and dural sac in the immediate postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, which did not differ significantly between groups. The subsidence grade and fusion rate did not differ, but cage subsidence was more severe in the UPS than BPS group.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral and bilateral PPS fixation after LLIF yielded similar short-term clinical and radiological outcomes. However, severe cage subsidence was more common in the UPS group, which suggests that BPS fixation after LLIF may be a better choice over the long term.

Novel Combination of Lateral Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Ipsi-Contra Decompression for Severe Stenosis From Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Case Report

Minimally invasive surgical approaches to the spine that leverage indirect decompression are gaining increasing popularity. While there is excellent literature on the value of indirect decompression, there are limitations to this procedure. Specifically, in patients with severe stenosis and neurogenic claudication, there is a concern among many surgeons regarding the adequacy of indirect decompression alone. In these cases, the lateral approach is often abandoned in favor of an open posterior or posterior minimally invasive approach. Unfortunately, some of the distinct benefits of the direct lateral approach are then lost. Here, we present the case of a 58-year-old male who underwent an L4-L5 lateral interbody fusion with an endoscopic ipsi-contra decompression to achieve both direct and indirect treatment of severe neuroforaminal and central stenosis. From this strategy, this patient had complete pre-operative symptom resolution and was able to return to work immediately after surgery without significant restriction. Combining the benefits of direct and indirect using an ultra-minimally invasive decompressive approach offers a potential solution.

Advances in Anterolateral Approaches to the Lumbar Spine: A Focus on Technological Developments

A historical overview of the evolution of anterolateral approaches to the lumber spine and associated patient outcomes is presented. In addition, the modern incorporation of new technologies is discussed, including interbody cages, intraoperative image guidance, robotics, augmented reality, and machine learning, which have significantly improved the spine surgery safety and efficacy profile. Current challenges and future directions are also covered, emphasizing the need for further research and development, particularly in robotic assistance and machine learning algorithms.

Expandable cages that expand both height and lordosis provide improved immediate effect on sagittal alignment and short-term clinical outcomes following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF)

Background

Failure to restore lordotic alignment is not an uncommon problem following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF), even with expandable cages that increase disc height. This study aims to investigate the effect of the expandable cage that is specifically designed to expand both height and lordosis. We evaluated the outcomes of MIS TLIF in restoring immediate postoperative sagittal alignment by comparing two different types of expandable cages. One cage is designed to solely increase disc height (Group H), while the other can expand both height and lordosis (Group HL).

Methods

Patients undergoing MIS TLIF using expandable cages were retrospectively reviewed, including 40 cases in Group H and 109 cases in Group HL. Visual analog scores of back and leg pain, and Oswestry disability index were collected. Disc height, disc angle, and sagittal alignment were measured. Complications were recorded, including early subsidence which was evaluated with computed tomography.

Results

Clinical and radiographic outcomes significantly improved in both groups postoperatively. Group HL showed superior improvement in segmental lordosis (4.4°±3.5° vs. 2.1°±4.8°, P=0.01) and disc angle (6.3°±3.8 vs. 2.2°±4.3°, P<0.001) compared to Group H. Overall incidence of early subsidence was 23.3%, predominantly observed during initial cases as part of the learning curve, but decreased to 18% after completion of the first 20 cases.

Conclusions

Expandable cages with a design specifically aimed at increasing lordotic angle can provide favorable outcomes and effectively improve immediate sagittal alignment following MIS TLIF, compared to conventional cages that only increase in height. However, regardless of the type of expandable cage used, it is crucial to avoid applying excessive force to achieve greater disc height or lordosis, as this may contribute to subsidence and a possible reduction in lordotic alignment restoration. Long-term results are needed to evaluate the clinical outcome, fusion rate, and maintenance of the sagittal alignment.

Influence of Placement of Lumbar Interbody Cage on Subsidence Risk: Biomechanical Study

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar spinal fusion is a common surgical procedure that can be done with a variety of different instrumentation and techniques. Despite numerous research studies investigating subsidence risk factors, the impact of cage placement on subsidence is not fully elucidated. This study aims to determine whether placement of an expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage at the center end plate or at the anterior apophyseal ring affects cage subsidence.

METHODS

A transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage was placed centrally or peripherally between 2 synthetic vertebral models of L3 and L4. A compression plate attached to a 10 KN load cell was used to uniaxially compress the assembly. The ultimate force required for the assembly to fail and subsidence stiffness were analyzed. Computed tomography scans of each L3 and L4 were obtained, and maximum end plate subsidence was measured in the frontal plane.

RESULTS

Anterior apophyseal cage placement resulted in higher stiffness of the vertebrae-cage assembly (Ks, 962.89 N/mm) and a higher subsidence stiffness (Kb,987.21 N/mm) compared with central placement (P < 0.05). Ultimate compressive load of the vertebrae-cage assembly did not increase. Moreover, the maximum subsidence depth did not significantly vary between placements.

CONCLUSIONS

The subsidence stiffness increased with anterior apophyseal cage placement. Periphery end plate cortical bone architecture may play a role in resisting the impact of cage subsidence. To fully understand the effect of cage placement on cage subsidence, future studies should investigate its implications on native and diseased spine.

Effect of Unintended Tissue Injury on the Development of Thigh Symptoms After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Adult Spinal Deformity: A Retrospective Case Series

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effects of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF)-induced unintended tissue damage, including cage subsidence, cage malposition, and hematoma in the psoas major muscle, on the development of thigh symptoms.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Thigh symptoms are the most frequent complications after LLIF and are assumed to be caused by lumbar plexus compression and/or direct injury to the psoas major muscle. However, the causes and risk factors of thigh symptoms are yet to be fully understood.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult patients with spinal deformity who underwent two-stage surgery using LLIF and a posterior open fusion for the first and second stages, respectively, were included. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were routinely performed after LLIF before posterior surgery to investigate cage subsidence, cage malposition, and hematoma in the psoas muscle. We evaluated the development of thigh symptoms after LLIF and examined the effects of tissue injury on the occurrence of thigh symptoms. The differences in demographics and surgical and tissue damage parameters were compared between the groups with and without thigh symptoms using unpaired t tests and chi-squared tests. Factors associated with the development of thigh symptoms and muscle weakness were also assessed using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 130 patients [17 men and 113 women; mean age, 68.7 (range, 47-84)] were included. Thigh symptoms were observed in 52 (40.0%) patients, including muscle weakness and contralateral side symptoms in 20 (15.4%) and 9 (17.3%) patients, respectively. The factors significantly associated with thigh symptoms identified after multiple logistic regression analysis included hematoma (odds ratio: 2.27, 95% CI, 1.03-5.01) and approach from the right side (odds ratio: 2.64, 95% CI, 1.21-5.75). The presence of cage malposition was the only significant factor associated with muscle weakness (odds ratio: 4.12, 95% CI, 1.37-12.4).

CONCLUSIONS

We found unintended tissue injury during LLIF was associated with thigh symptoms. We found that hematoma in the psoas major muscle and cage malposition were the factors associated with thigh symptoms and muscle weakness, respectively.

Comparison of complications, revisions, spinopelvic parameters, and health-related quality of life after posterior spinal fusion using multiple-rod constructs or two-rod constructs for adult spinal deformity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of mechanical complications is high in patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for adult spinal deformity (ASD), especially for cases with severe sagittal malalignment or a prior spinal fusion requiring three-column osteotomy (3-CO) or spinopelvic fixation (SPF). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the complications, revisions, radiographic spinopelvic parameters, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and surgical data of PSF using multiple-rod constructs to those of two-rod constructs for the treatment of ASD.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed for relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Complications, revisions, spinopelvic parameters, HRQoL, and surgical date were compared between patients with ASD who underwent PSF using multiple-rod constructs (multi-rod group) and two-rod constructs (two-rod group).

RESULTS

Ten studies, comprising 797 patients with ASD (399 in the multi-rod group and 398 in the two-rod group), were included. All these studies were retrospective cohort studies. There were no significant differences in the surgical, wound-related, and systemic complications between the groups. In the multi-rod group, we noted a significantly lower incidence of rod fracture (RR, 0.43; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57, P < 0.01), pseudoarthrosis (RR, 0.38; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.53, P < 0.01), and revisions (RR, 0.44; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.58, P < 0.01); a superior restoration of PI-LL (WMD, 3.96; 95% CI 1.03 to 6.88, P < 0.01) and SVA (WMD, 31.53; 95% CI 21.16 to 41.90, P < 0.01); a better improvement of ODI score (WMD, 6.82; 95% CI 2.33 to 11.31, P < 0.01), SRS-22 total score (WMD, 0.44; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.83, P = 0.02), and VAS-BP score (WMD, 1.02; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.73, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the two-rod constructs, PSF using multiple-rod constructs was associated with a lower incidence of mechanical complications, a lower revision rate, a superior restoration of sagittal alignment, and a better improvement of HRQoL, without increasing surgical invasiveness. Multiple-rod constructs should be routinely considered to for ASD patients, especially for cases with severe sagittal malalignment or a prior spinal fusion requiring 3-CO or SPF.

Postoperative Radiological Improvement after Staged Surgery Using Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Preoperative Coronal Malalignment in Patients with Adult Spinal Deformity

This retrospective observational study evaluated improvement in coronal malalignment (CM) after anteroposterior staged surgery using lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in patients with coronal lumbar curve adult spinal deformity (ASD). Sixty patients with ASD underwent surgery; 34 had SRS-Schwab type L lumbar curve. Patients with a coronal balance distance (CBD) ≥20 mm were diagnosed with CM. Using the Obeid CM classification, we classified the preoperative coronal pattern as concave CM (type 1) or convex CM (type 2). Demographic, surgical, and radiological parameters were compared. Whole-spine standing radiographs were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively. Twenty-three patients had type 1A, six had type 2A, five had no CM, and none had type 1B or 2B according to the Obeid CM classification. Compared with patients with Obeid type 1A, those with Obeid type 2A had significantly higher preoperative and postoperative coronal L4 tilts and a smaller change in corrected CBD (Δ|CBD|) (76.6 mm vs. 24.1 mm, p < 0.001). At the final follow-up, 58.6% (17/29 patients) of patients with SRS-Schwab type L CM showed improvement after corrective fusion using LLIF. Although the difference was not statistically significant, CM improved in 69.6% (16/23 patients) of patients with Obeid type 1A type but only 16.7% (1/6 patients) of those with Obeid type 2A type (p = 0.056). CM was more likely to remain after anteroposterior staged surgery using LLIF in patients with preoperative Obeid type 2A ASD.

Biomechanical evaluation of multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct for the augmentation of lumbosacral junction in long spinal fusion surgery

Background: Posterior long spinal fusion was the common procedure for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Although the application of sacropelvic fixation (SPF), the incidence of pseudoarthrosis and implant failure is still high in long spinal fusion extending to lumbosacral junction (LSJ). To address these mechanical complications, advanced SPF technique by multiple pelvic screws or multirod construct has been recommended. This was the first study to compare the biomechanical performance of combining multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct to other advanced SPF constructs for the augmentation of LSJ in long spinal fusion surgery through finite element (FE) analysis.

Methods: An intact lumbopelvic FE model based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult male volunteer was constructed and validated. The intact model was modified to develop five instrumented models, all of which had bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation from L1 to S1 with posterior lumbar interbody fusion and different SPF constructs, including No-SPF, bilateral single S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw and single rod (SS-SR), bilateral multiple S2AI screws and single rod (MS-SR), bilateral single S2AI screw and multiple rods (SS-MR), and bilateral multiple S2AI screws and multiple rods (MS-MR). The range of motion (ROM) and stress on instrumentation, cages, sacrum, and S1 superior endplate (SEP) in flexion (FL), extension (EX), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) were compared among models.

Results: Compared with intact model and No-SPF, the ROM of global lumbopelvis, LSJ, and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) was decreased in SS-SR, MS-SR, SS-MR, and MS-MR in all directions. Compared with SS-SR, the ROM of global lumbopelvis and LSJ of MS-SR, SS-MR, and MS-MR further decreased, while the ROM of SIJ was only decreased in MS-SR and MS-MR. The stress on instrumentation, cages, S1-SEP, and sacrum decreased in SS-SR, compared with no-SPF. Compared with SS-SR, the stress in EX and AR further decreased in SS-MR and MS-SR. The most significantly decreased ROM and stress were observed in MS-MR.

Conclusion: Both multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct could increase the mechanical stability of LSJ and reduce stress on instrumentation, cages, S1-SEP, and sacrum. The MS-MR construct was the most adequate to reduce the risk of lumbosacral pseudarthrosis, implant failure, and sacrum fracture. This study may provide surgeons with important evidence for the application of MS-MR construct in the clinical settings.