Comparing and Contrasting the Clinical Utility of Sagittal Spine Alignment Classification Frameworks: Roussouly Versus SRS-Schwab.
Journal
Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Mar 2022
15 Mar 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
24
11
2021
medline:
3
3
2022
entrez:
23
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Retrospective cohort study of a prospectively collected database. To compare clinical utility of two common classification systems for adult spinal deformity (ASD) and determine whether both should be considered in surgical planning to improve patient outcomes. Surgical restoration of appropriate Roussouly classification shape or SRS-Schwab ASD classification may improve outcomes. ASD patients with pre- and 2-year postop (2Y) radiographic/health-related quality of life (HRQL) data were grouped by "theoretical" and "current" Roussouly type. Univariate analyses assessed outcomes of patients who mismatched Roussouly types at both pre- and 2Y intervals (Mismatched) and those of preoperative mismatched patients who matched at 2-years (Matched). Subanalysis assessed outcomes of patients who improved in Schwab modifiers, and patients who both improved in both Schwab modifiers and matched Roussouly type by 2Y. Included: 515 ASD patients (59 ± 14 yrs, 80% F). Preoperative breakdown of "current" Roussouly types: Type 1 (10%), 2 (54%), 3 (24%), and 4 (12%). Matched and Mismatched groups did not differ in rates of reaching MCID for any HRQL metrics by 2Y (all P > 0.10). Reoperation, PJK, and complications did not differ between Matched and Mismatched (all P > 0.10), but Roussouly Matched patients had toward lower rates of instrumentation failure (17.2% vs. 24.8%, P = 0.038). By 2Y, 28% of patients improved in PT Schwab modifier, 37% in SVA, and 46% in PI-LL. Patients who both Matched Roussouly at 2Y and improved in all Schwab modifiers met MCID for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) activity at higher rates than patients who did not. Isolated restoration per the Roussouly system was not associated with superior outcomes. Patients who both matched Roussouly type and improved in Schwab modifiers had superior patient-reported outcomes at 2-years. Concurrent consideration of both systems may offer utility in establishing optimal realignment goals.Level of Evidence: 3.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Retrospective cohort study of a prospectively collected database.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To compare clinical utility of two common classification systems for adult spinal deformity (ASD) and determine whether both should be considered in surgical planning to improve patient outcomes.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
Surgical restoration of appropriate Roussouly classification shape or SRS-Schwab ASD classification may improve outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
ASD patients with pre- and 2-year postop (2Y) radiographic/health-related quality of life (HRQL) data were grouped by "theoretical" and "current" Roussouly type. Univariate analyses assessed outcomes of patients who mismatched Roussouly types at both pre- and 2Y intervals (Mismatched) and those of preoperative mismatched patients who matched at 2-years (Matched). Subanalysis assessed outcomes of patients who improved in Schwab modifiers, and patients who both improved in both Schwab modifiers and matched Roussouly type by 2Y.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Included: 515 ASD patients (59 ± 14 yrs, 80% F). Preoperative breakdown of "current" Roussouly types: Type 1 (10%), 2 (54%), 3 (24%), and 4 (12%). Matched and Mismatched groups did not differ in rates of reaching MCID for any HRQL metrics by 2Y (all P > 0.10). Reoperation, PJK, and complications did not differ between Matched and Mismatched (all P > 0.10), but Roussouly Matched patients had toward lower rates of instrumentation failure (17.2% vs. 24.8%, P = 0.038). By 2Y, 28% of patients improved in PT Schwab modifier, 37% in SVA, and 46% in PI-LL. Patients who both Matched Roussouly at 2Y and improved in all Schwab modifiers met MCID for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) activity at higher rates than patients who did not.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Isolated restoration per the Roussouly system was not associated with superior outcomes. Patients who both matched Roussouly type and improved in Schwab modifiers had superior patient-reported outcomes at 2-years. Concurrent consideration of both systems may offer utility in establishing optimal realignment goals.Level of Evidence: 3.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34812196
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004300
pii: 00007632-202203150-00002
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
455-462Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Schwab FJ, Ungar B, Blondel B, et al. Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:1077–1082.
Smith JS, Klineberg E, Schwab F, et al. Change in classification grade by the SRS-Schwab Adult Spinal Deformity Classification predicts impact on health-related quality of life measures: prospective analysis of operative and nonoperative treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38:1663–1671.
Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, et al. 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; 30:346–353.
Laouissat F, Sebaaly A, Gehrchen M, et al. Classification of normal sagittal spine alignment: refounding the Roussouly classification. Eur spine J 2018; 27:2002–2011.
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; 7:99–103.
Pizones J, Martin MB, Perez-Grueso FJS, et al. Impact of adult scoliosis on roussouly sagittal shape classification. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019; 44:270–279.
Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 2008; 8:968–974.
Carreon LY, Kelly MP, Crawford CH 3rd, et al. SRS-22R minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after adult lumbar scoliosis surgery. Spine Deform 2018; 6:79–83.
Champain S, Benchikh K, Nogier A, Mazel C, Guise JD, Skalli W. Validation of new clinical quantitative analysis software applicable in spine orthopaedic studies. Eur Spine J 2006; 15:982–991.
Lafage V, Diebo BG, Schwab F. Sagittal Spino-pelvic Alignment: From the Theory to Clinical Aplication [Internet]. Editorial Médica Panamericana; 2014. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=1s-GrgEACAAJ . Accessed November 2020.
Schwab F, Ungar B, Blondel B, et al. SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:1077–1082.
Terran J, Schwab FJ, Shaffrey CI, et al. The SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: assessment and clinical correlations based on a prospective operative and nonoperative cohort. Neurosurgery 2013; 73:559–568.
Passias PG, Jalai CM, Worley N, et al. Adult spinal deformity: national trends in the presentation, treatment, and perioperative outcomes from 2003 to 2010. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017; 5:342–350.
Bess S, Schwab F, Lafage V, et al. Classifications for adult spinal deformity and use of the Scoliosis Research Society–Schwab adult spinal deformity classification. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2013; 24:185–193.
Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L, et al. Global alignment and proportion (GAP) score: development and validation of a new method of analyzing spinopelvic alignment to predict mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99:1661–1672.
Jager ZS, İnceoğlu S, Palmer D, et al. Preventing instrumentation failure in three-column spinal osteotomy: biomechanical analysis of rod configuration. Spine Deform 2016; 4:3–9.
Chen C-S, Chen W-J, Cheng C-K, et al. Failure analysis of broken pedicle screws on spinal instrumentation. Med Eng Phys 2005; 27:487–496.
Ha K-Y, Jang W-H, Kim Y-H, et al. Clinical relevance of the srs-schwab classification for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41:E282–E288.
Hallager DW, Hansen LV, Dragsted CR, Peytz N, Gehrchen M, Dahl B. A Comprehensive Analysis of the SRS-Schwab Adult Spinal Deformity Classification and Confounding Variables: A Prospective, Non-US Cross-sectional Study in 292 Patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41:E589–E597.
Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Bess S, et al. Recent and emerging advances in spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 2017; 80:S70–S85.