A comparative cohort study of surgical approaches for adult spinal deformity at a minimum 2-year follow-up.
Adult spinal deformity
Alignment
Complications
Interbody fusion
Lumbar fusion
Outcomes
Posterior spinal fusion
Surgical approaches
Journal
European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
ISSN: 1432-0932
Titre abrégé: Eur Spine J
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9301980
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Jul 2024
02 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
09
06
2023
accepted:
02
06
2024
revised:
30
05
2024
medline:
3
7
2024
pubmed:
3
7
2024
entrez:
2
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This study was a retrospective multi-center comparative cohort study. A retrospective institutional database of operative adult spinal deformity patients was utilized. All fusions > 5 vertebral levels and including the sacrum/pelvis were eligible for inclusion. Revisions, 3 column osteotomies, and patients with < 2-year clinical follow-up were excluded. Patients were separated into 3 groups based on surgical approach: 1) posterior spinal fusion without interbody (PSF), 2) PSF with interbody (PSF-IB), and 3) anteroposterior (AP) fusion (anterior lumbar interbody fusion or lateral lumbar interbody fusion with posterior screw fixation). Intraoperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes, as well as complications, were compared between groups with ANOVA and χ One-hundred and thirty-eight patients were included for study (PSF, n = 37; PSF-IB, n = 44; AP, n = 57). Intraoperatively, estimated blood loss was similar between groups (p = 0.171). However, the AP group had longer operative times (547.5 min) compared to PSF (385.1) and PSF-IB (370.7) (p < 0.001). Additionally, fusion length was shorter in PSF-IB (11.4) compared to AP (13.6) and PSF (12.9) (p = 0.004). There were no differences between the groups in terms of change in alignment from preoperative to 2 years postoperative. There were no differences in clinical outcomes. While postoperative complications were largely similar between groups, operative complications were higher in the AP group (31.6%) compared to the PSF (5.4%) and PSF-IB (9.1) groups (p < 0.001). While there were differences in intraoperative outcomes (operative time and fusion length), there were no differences in postoperative clinical or radiographic outcomes. AP fusion was associated with a higher rate of operative complications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38955866
doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08354-y
pii: 10.1007/s00586-024-08354-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Mobbs RJ et al (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP LLIF ALIF. J Spine Surg 1(1):2–18
pubmed: 27683674
pmcid: 5039869
Reisener MJ et al (2020) Trends in lumbar spinal fusion-a literature review. J Spine Surg 6(4):752–761
doi: 10.21037/jss-20-492
pubmed: 33447679
pmcid: 7797794
Kim P, Kurokawa R, Itoki K (2010) Technical advancements and utilization of spine surgery–international disparities in trend-dynamics between Japan, Korea, and the USA. Neurol Med Chir 50(9):853–858
doi: 10.2176/nmc.50.853
Rajaee SS et al (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine 37(1):67–76
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820cccfb
pubmed: 21311399
Sheikh SR et al (2020) Can we justify it? trends in the utilization of spinal fusions and associated reimbursement. Neurosurgery 86(2):E193–E202
doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyz400
pubmed: 31574148
Acosta FL et al (2011) Changes in coronal and sagittal plane alignment following minimally invasive direct lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in adults: a radiographic study. J Neurosurg Spine 15(1):92–96
doi: 10.3171/2011.3.SPINE10425
pubmed: 21476802
Benglis DM et al (2008) Minimally invasive anterolateral approaches for the treatment of back pain and adult degenerative deformity. Neurosurgery 63(3 Suppl):191–196
doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000325487.49020.91
pubmed: 18812924
Mundis GM, Akbarnia BA, Phillips FM (2010) Adult deformity correction through minimally invasive lateral approach techniques. Spine 35(26 Suppl):S312–S321
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318202495f
pubmed: 21160395
Caputo AM et al (2013) Extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. J Clin Neurosci 20(11):1558–1563
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2012.12.024
pubmed: 23906522
Crawford CH et al (2015) The minimum clinically important difference in SRS-22R total score, appearance, activity and pain domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine 40(6):377–381
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000761
pubmed: 25774463
Lykissas MG et al (2014) Nerve injury after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 919 treated levels with identification of risk factors. Spine J 14(5):749–758
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.066
pubmed: 24012428
Guérin P et al (2012) The lumbosacral plexus: anatomic considerations for minimally invasive retroperitoneal transpsoas approach. Surg Radiol Anat 34(2):151–157
doi: 10.1007/s00276-011-0881-z
pubmed: 21971645
Isaacs RE et al (2010) A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine 35(26 Suppl):S322–S330
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022e04
pubmed: 21160396
Hsieh MK et al (2015) Combined anterior lumbar interbody fusion and instrumented posterolateral fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: indication and surgical outcomes. BMC Surg 15:26
doi: 10.1186/s12893-015-0006-4
pubmed: 25887274
pmcid: 4374402
Watkins RG, Hanna R, Chang D (2014) Sagittal alignment after lumbar interbody fusion: comparing anterior, lateral, and transforaminal approaches. J Spinal Disord Tech 27(5):253–256
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828a8447
pubmed: 23511641
Bhagat S et al (2013) Morbidity and mortality in adult spinal deformity surgery: Norwich Spinal Unit experience. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl 1):S42–S46
doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2627-y
pubmed: 23288452
Bae J et al (2018) Comparative analysis of 3 surgical strategies for adult spinal deformity with mild to moderate sagittal imbalance. J Neurosurg Spine 28(1):40–49
doi: 10.3171/2017.5.SPINE161370
pubmed: 29087808
Chiriano J et al (2009) The role of the vascular surgeon in anterior retroperitoneal spine exposure: preservation of open surgical training. J Vasc Surg 50(1):148–151
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.01.007
pubmed: 19223139
Hamouda AM et al (2024) The predictors of incidental durotomy in patients undergoing pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the correction of adult spinal deformity. J Clin Med 13(2):340
doi: 10.3390/jcm13020340
pubmed: 38256474
pmcid: 10816915