1
|
Chi J, Zhang Y, Fontaine A, Zhang Z, Wang J, Labaran L, Li X. Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Versus Multilevel Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity: Trends, Outcomes, and Cost. Clin Spine Surg 2024; 37:E192-E200. [PMID: 38158597 DOI: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000001566] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2023] [Accepted: 11/29/2023] [Indexed: 01/03/2024]
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) with multilevel anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in posterior long-segment fusion. BACKGROUND PSO and ALIF/LLIF are 2 techniques used to restore lumbar lordosis and correct sagittal alignment, with each holding its unique advantages and disadvantages. As there are situations where both techniques can be employed, it is important to compare the risks and benefits of both. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent PSO or multilevel ALIF/LLIF with posterior fusion of 7-12 levels and pelvic fixation were identified. 1:1 propensity score was used to match PSO and ALIF/LLIF cohorts for age, sex, and relevant comorbidities, including smoking status. Logistic regression was used to compare medical and surgical outcomes. Trends and costs were generated for both groups as well. RESULTS ALIF/LLIF utilization in posterior long fusion has been steadily increasing since 2010, whereas PSO utilization has significantly dropped since 2017. PSO was associated with an increased risk of durotomy ( P < 0.001) and neurological injury ( P = 0.018). ALIF/LLIF was associated with increased rates of postoperative radiculopathy ( P = 0.005). Patients who underwent PSO had higher rates of pseudarthrosis within 1 and 2 years ( P = 0.015; P = 0.010), 1-year hardware failure ( P = 0.028), and 2-year reinsertion of instrumentation ( P = 0.009). Reoperation rates for both approaches were not statistically different at any time point throughout the 5-year period. In addition, there were no significant differences in both procedural and 90-day postoperative costs. CONCLUSIONS PSO was associated with higher rates of surgical complications compared with anterior approaches. However, there was no significant difference in overall reoperation rates. Spine surgeons should select the optimal technique for a given patient and the type of lordotic correction required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jialun Chi
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
| | - Yi Zhang
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
- Department of Spine Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Andrew Fontaine
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
| | - Zhichang Zhang
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
| | - Jesse Wang
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
| | - Lawal Labaran
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
| | - Xudong Li
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sharfman ZT, Clark AJ, Gupta MC, Theologis AA. Coronal Alignment in Adult Spine Surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2024; 32:417-426. [PMID: 38354413 DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-23-00961] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2023] [Accepted: 12/28/2023] [Indexed: 02/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Coronal realignment is an important goal in adult spine surgery that has been overshadowed by emphasis on the sagittal plane. As coronal malalignment drives considerable functional disability, a fundamental understanding of its clinical and radiographic evaluation and surgical techniques to prevent its development is of utmost importance. In this study, we review etiologies of coronal malalignment and their radiographic and clinical assessments, risk factors for and functional implications of postoperative coronal malalignment, and surgical strategies to optimize appropriate coronal realignment in adult spine surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zachary T Sharfman
- From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California - San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA (Sharfman and Theologis), Department of Neurological Surgery, UCSF, San Francisco, CA (Clark), Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO (Gupta)
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cummins DD, Clark AJ, Gupta MC, Theologis AA. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for correction of lumbosacral fractional curves in adult (thoraco)lumbar scoliosis: A systematic review. NORTH AMERICAN SPINE SOCIETY JOURNAL 2024; 17:100299. [PMID: 38193108 PMCID: PMC10772279 DOI: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2023.100299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2023] [Revised: 11/25/2023] [Accepted: 11/27/2023] [Indexed: 01/10/2024]
Abstract
Background Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be used to correct the lumbosacral fractional curve (LsFC) in de novo adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis. Yet, the relative benefits of ALIF and TLIF for LsFC correction remain largely undetermined. Purpose To compare the currently available data comparing radiographic correction of the LsFC provided by ALIF and TLIF of LsFC in adult (thoraco)lumbar scoliosis. Methods A systematic review was performed on original articles discussing fractional curve correction of lumbosacral spinal deformity (using search criteria: "lumbar" and "fractional curve"). Articles which discussed TLIF or ALIF for LsFC correction were presented and radiographic results for TLIF and ALIF were compared. Results Thirty-one articles were returned in the original search criteria, with 7 articles included in the systematic review criteria. All 7 articles presented radiographic results using TLIF for LsFC correction. Three of these articles also discussed results for patients whose LsFC were treated with ALIFs; 2 articles directly compared TLIF and ALIF for LsFC correction. Level III and level IV evidence indicated ALIF as advantageous for reducing the coronal Cobb angle of the LsFC. There were mixed results on relative efficacy of ALIF and TLIF in the LsFC for restoration of adequate global coronal alignment. Conclusions Limited level III and IV evidence suggests ALIF as advantageous for reducing the coronal Cobb angle of the LsFC in de novo adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis. Relative efficacy of ALIF and TLIF in the LsFC for restoration of global coronal alignment may be dictated by several factors, including directionality and magnitude of preoperative coronal deformity. Given the limited and low-quality evidence, additional research is warranted to determine the ideal interbody support strategies to address the LsFC in adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel D. Cummins
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California — San Francisco (UCSF), 500 Parnassus Ave, MUW 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94143 United States
| | - Aaron J. Clark
- Department of Neurological Surgery, UCSF, 400 Parnassus Ave, Eighth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94143, United States
| | - Munish C. Gupta
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University, Campus Box 8233, 660 Euclid Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63110, United States
| | - Alekos A. Theologis
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California — San Francisco (UCSF), 500 Parnassus Ave, MUW 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94143 United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zuckerman SL, Chanbour H, Hassan FM, Lai CS, Shen Y, Kerolus MG, Ha A, Buchanan I, Lee NJ, Leung E, Cerpa M, Lehman RA, Lenke LG. The Lumbosacral Fractional Curve vs Maximum Coronal Cobb Angle in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients with Coronal Malalignment: Which Matters More? Global Spine J 2023:21925682231161564. [PMID: 36987946 DOI: 10.1177/21925682231161564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES In patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery we sought to: 1) report preoperative and postoperative lumbosacral fractional (LSF) curve and maximum coronal Cobb angles and 2) determine their impact on radiographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS A single-institution cohort study was undertaken. The LSF curve was the cobb angle between the sacrum and most tilted lower lumbar vertebra. Coronal/sagittal vertical axis (CVA/SVA) were collected. Patients were compared between 4 groups: 1) Neutral Alignment (NA); 2) coronal malalignment only (CM); 3) Sagittal malalignment only (SM); and 4) Combined-Coronal-Sagittal-Malalignment (CCSM). Outcomes including postoperative CM, postoperative coronal vertical axis, complications, readmissions, reoperation, and PROs. RESULTS A total of 243 patients underwent ASD surgery with mean total instrumented levels of 13.5. Mean LSF curve was 12.1±9.9°(0.2-62.3) and mean max Cobb angle was 43.0±26.5° (0.0-134.3). The largest mean LSF curves were seen in patients with CM (14.6°) and CCSM (13.1°) compared to NA (12.1°) and SM (9.5°) (p=0.100). A higher LSF curve was seen in patients with fusion to the sacrum and instrumentation to the pelvis (p=0.009), and a higher LSF curve was associated with more TLIFs (p=0.031). Postoperatively, more TLIFs were associated with greater amount of LSF curve correction (p<0.001). Comparing the LSF and the max Cob angle among Qiu types, the highest mean max Cobb angle was in Qiu Type B patients (p=0.025), whereas the highest mean LSF curve was in Qiu Type C patients (p=0.037). Moreover, 82.7% of patients had a LSF curve opposite the max Cobb angle. The LSF curve was larger than the max Cobb angle in 22/243 (9.1%) patients, and most of these 22 patients were Qiu Type A (59.1%). Regarding correction, the max Cobb angle achieved more correction than the LSF curve, judged by the percent improved from preop (54.5% Cobb vs. 46.5% LSF, p=0.025) in patients with max cobb>20° and LSF curve >5°. The LSF curve underwent greater correction in Qiu Type C patients (9.2°) compared to Type A (5.7°) and Type B (5.1°) (p=0.023); however, the max Cobb angle was similarly corrected among Qiu Types: Type A 21.8°, Type B 24.6°, and Type C 25.4° (p=0.602). Minimal differences were seen comparing the preop/postop/change in LSF curve and max Cobb angle regarding postop CM, postop CVA, complications, readmissions, reoperation, and PROs. CONCLUSIONS The LSF curve was highest in patients with CM, CCSM, and Qiu Type C curves. Most patients had a LSF curve opposite the max Cobb angle. The max Cobb angle was more often corrected than the LSF curve. The LSF curve underwent greater correction among Qiu Type C patients, whereas the max Cobb angle was similarly corrected among all Qiu Types. No clear trend was seen regarding postoperative complications and PROs between the LSF curve and max Cobb angle.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Scott L Zuckerman
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Hani Chanbour
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Fthimnir M Hassan
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Christopher S Lai
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Yong Shen
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Mena G Kerolus
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alex Ha
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ian Buchanan
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nathan J Lee
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Eric Leung
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Meghan Cerpa
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ronald A Lehman
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Lawrence G Lenke
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|