Optimized Surgical Strategy for Adult Spinal Deformity: Quantitative Lordosis Correction versus Lordosis Morphology.

lordosis correction lordosis distribution lordosis morphology lumbar degenerative kyphosis optimal sagittal alignment

Journal

Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Apr 2021
Historique:
received: 28 02 2021
revised: 20 04 2021
accepted: 22 04 2021
entrez: 30 4 2021
pubmed: 1 5 2021
medline: 1 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

In surgical correction of adult spinal deformity (ASD), pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) plays a key role to restore normal sagittal alignment. Recently, it has been found that postoperative lordosis morphology act as an important factor in preventing mechanical complications. However, there have been no studies on the effect of postoperative lordosis morphology on the restoration of sagittal alignment. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of postoperative lordosis morphology on achievement of optimal sagittal alignment. The secondary objective was to find out which radiographic or morphologic parameter affects sagittal alignment in surgical correction of ASD. 228 consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative kyphosis who underwent deformity correction and long-segment fixation from T10 to S1 with sacropelvic fixation and follow-up over 2 years were enrolled. Patients were divided according to whether optimal alignment was achieved (balanced group) or not (non-balanced group) at last follow-up. We analyzed the differences of postoperative radiographic parameters and morphologic parameters between two groups. Correlation analysis and stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was performed to predict the effect of PI-LL and morphologic parameters on the sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Of 228 patients, 195 (85.5%) achieved optimal alignment at last follow-up. Two groups significantly differed in postoperative and last follow-up LL ( When planning spine reconstruction surgery, although considering postoperative lordosis morphology is necessary, it is still very important considering proportional lordosis correction based on individual spinopelvic alignment (PI-LL) to achieve optimal sagittal alignment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In surgical correction of adult spinal deformity (ASD), pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) plays a key role to restore normal sagittal alignment. Recently, it has been found that postoperative lordosis morphology act as an important factor in preventing mechanical complications. However, there have been no studies on the effect of postoperative lordosis morphology on the restoration of sagittal alignment. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of postoperative lordosis morphology on achievement of optimal sagittal alignment. The secondary objective was to find out which radiographic or morphologic parameter affects sagittal alignment in surgical correction of ASD.
METHODS METHODS
228 consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative kyphosis who underwent deformity correction and long-segment fixation from T10 to S1 with sacropelvic fixation and follow-up over 2 years were enrolled. Patients were divided according to whether optimal alignment was achieved (balanced group) or not (non-balanced group) at last follow-up. We analyzed the differences of postoperative radiographic parameters and morphologic parameters between two groups. Correlation analysis and stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was performed to predict the effect of PI-LL and morphologic parameters on the sagittal vertical axis (SVA).
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 228 patients, 195 (85.5%) achieved optimal alignment at last follow-up. Two groups significantly differed in postoperative and last follow-up LL (
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
When planning spine reconstruction surgery, although considering postoperative lordosis morphology is necessary, it is still very important considering proportional lordosis correction based on individual spinopelvic alignment (PI-LL) to achieve optimal sagittal alignment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33925824
pii: jcm10091867
doi: 10.3390/jcm10091867
pmc: PMC8123441
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Feb;18(1):66-71
pubmed: 15687855
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Oct 4;99(19):1661-1672
pubmed: 28976431
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Dec;43(6):E5
pubmed: 29191103
Neurosurg Focus. 2010 Mar;28(3):E8
pubmed: 20192668
Surg Radiol Anat. 2009 Dec;31(10):781-92
pubmed: 19597753
Eur Spine J. 2010 Nov;19(11):1824-36
pubmed: 20567858
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Aug 15;24(16):1712-20
pubmed: 10472106
J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Feb;14(2):184-91
pubmed: 21184642
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Feb 1;30(3):346-53
pubmed: 15682018
Eur Spine J. 2015 Jan;24 Suppl 1:S49-57
pubmed: 25487952
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Nov 15;42(22):E1297-E1304
pubmed: 28542103
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Sep 15;26(18):2029-35
pubmed: 11547204
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Aug 1;34(17):1828-33
pubmed: 19644334
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Dec 1;35(25):2224-31
pubmed: 21102297
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Mar;86-A Suppl 1:44-50
pubmed: 14996921
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988 Nov;13(11):1317-26
pubmed: 2974629
Eur Spine J. 2016 Aug;25(8):2668-75
pubmed: 26883266
Eur Spine J. 2020 Mar;29(3):420-427
pubmed: 31630265
Eur Spine J. 2015 Apr;24 Suppl 3:433-8
pubmed: 25893333
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Mar 15;30(6):682-8
pubmed: 15770185
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jul 15;30(14):1643-9
pubmed: 16025035
Eur Spine J. 2019 Sep;28(9):1948-1954
pubmed: 29992448
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 1;37(10):845-53
pubmed: 22024904
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Apr 15;44(8):571-578
pubmed: 30234798
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 15;31(20):2343-52
pubmed: 16985463
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Aug 15;42(16):E969-E977
pubmed: 27922574
Eur Spine J. 2020 Jun;29(6):1388-1396
pubmed: 32328789
Eur Spine J. 2011 Sep;20 Suppl 5:578-85
pubmed: 21796394
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 1;31(19 Suppl):S171-8
pubmed: 16946635
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 15;31(20):2329-36
pubmed: 16985461
Spine J. 2020 Jun;20(6):925-933
pubmed: 31837467
Eur Spine J. 1998;7(2):99-103
pubmed: 9629932
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Aug 1;45(15):E933-E942
pubmed: 32675608
Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2016 Sep 1;12(3):214-221
pubmed: 29506108
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Oct 15;22(20):2452-7
pubmed: 9355229
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Nov 15;35(24):E1386-91
pubmed: 21030897
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Feb 15;30(4):427-33
pubmed: 15706340
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 May;20(5):515-22
pubmed: 24628129

Auteurs

Sang-Kyu Im (SK)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea.

Ki Young Lee (KY)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea.

Hae Seong Lim (HS)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea.

Dong Uk Suh (DU)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea.

Jung-Hee Lee (JH)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea.

Classifications MeSH