Literature DB >> 18270753

Short fusion versus long fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

Kyu-Jung Cho1, Se-Il Suk, Seung-Rim Park, Jin-Hyok Kim, Sung-Soo Kim, Tong-Joo Lee, Jeong-Joon Lee, Jong-Min Lee.   

Abstract

The extent of fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis has not yet been determined. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of short fusion versus long fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Fifty patients (mean age 65.5 +/- 5.1 years) undergoing decompression and fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation were evaluated. Short fusion was defined as fusion within the deformity, not exceeding the end vertebra. Long fusion was defined as fusion extended above the upper end vertebra. The lower end vertebra was included in the fusion in all the patients. The short fusion group included 28 patients and the long fusion group included 22 patients. Patients' age and number of medical co-morbidities were similar in both the groups. The number of levels fused was 3.1 +/- 0.9 segments in the short fusion group and 6.5 +/- 1.5 in the long fusion group. Before surgery, the average Cobb angle was 16.3 degrees (range 11-28 degrees ) in the short fusion group and 21.7 degrees (range 12-33 degrees ) in the long fusion group. The correction of the Cobb angle averaged 39% in the short fusion group and 72% in the long fusion group with a statistical difference (P = 0.001). Coronal imbalance improved significantly in the long fusion group more than in the short fusion group (P = 0.03). The correction of lateral listhesis was better in the long fusion group (P = 0.02). However, there was no difference in the correction of lumbar lordosis and sagittal imbalance between the two groups. Ten of the 50 patients had additional posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5 or L5-S1. The interbody fusion had a positive influence in improving lumbar lordosis, but was ineffective at restoring sagittal imbalance. Early perioperative complications were likely to develop in the long fusion group. Late complications included adjacent segment disease, loosening of screws, and pseudarthrosis. Adjacent segment disease developed in ten patients in the short fusion group, and in five patients in the long fusion group. In the short fusion group, adjacent segment disease occurred proximally in all of the ten patients. Loosening of distal screws developed in three patients, and pseudarthrosis at L5-S1 in one patient in the long fusion group. Reoperation was performed in four patients in the long fusion group and three patients in the short fusion group. In conclusion, short fusion is sufficient for patients with small Cobb angle and good spinal balance. For patients with severe Cobb angle and rotatory subluxation, long fusion should be carried out to minimize adjacent segment disease. For patients who have severe sagittal imbalance, spinal osteotomy is an alternative technique to be considered. As long fusion is likely to increase early perioperative complications, great care should be taken for high-risk patients to avoid complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18270753      PMCID: PMC2367413          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-008-0615-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  15 in total

Review 1.  Adult scoliosis: surgical indications, operative management, complications, and outcomes.

Authors:  D S Bradford; B K Tay; S S Hu
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

Authors:  Scott D Daffner; Alexander R Vaccaro
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  2003-02

3.  Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults.

Authors:  Leah Y Carreon; Rolando M Puno; John R Dimar; Steven D Glassman; John R Johnson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 4.  The adult scoliosis.

Authors:  Max Aebi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-18       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Adult scoliosis: a quantitative radiographic and clinical analysis.

Authors:  Frank J Schwab; Vinson A Smith; Michele Biserni; Lorenzo Gamez; Jean-Pierre C Farcy; Murali Pagala
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Surgical treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with associated scoliosis.

Authors:  E D Simmons
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Spinal stenosis with scoliosis.

Authors:  E D Simmons; E H Simmons
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 8.  Degenerative scoliosis. Options for surgical management.

Authors:  Munish C Gupta
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.472

Review 9.  The pros and cons to saving the L5-S1 motion segment in a long scoliosis fusion construct.

Authors:  Keith H Bridwell; Charles C Edwards; Lawrence G Lenke
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 10.  Degenerative lumbar scoliosis: evaluation and management.

Authors:  Clifford B Tribus
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.020

View more
  44 in total

1.  Correction and stabilization of a double major adult idiopathic scoliosis from T5/L5.

Authors:  Max Aebi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Correction of sagittal plane deformity and predictive factors for a favourable radiological outcome following multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusion for mild degenerative scoliosis.

Authors:  Silviu Sabou; Tzu-Heng Jason Tseng; John Stephenson; Irfan Siddique; Rajat Verma; Saeed Mohammad
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Classification of sagittal imbalance based on spinal alignment and compensatory mechanisms.

Authors:  Claudio Lamartina; Pedro Berjano
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Surgical treatments for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a meta analysis.

Authors:  Guohua Wang; Jianzhong Hu; Xiangyang Liu; Yong Cao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Risk factors for medical complications after long-level internal fixation in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis.

Authors:  Xi-Nuo Zhang; Xiang-Yao Sun; Xiang-Long Meng; Yong Hai
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 6.  Outcomes of Short Fusion versus Long Fusion for Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Joshua Xu; Monish M Maharaj; Julian Li; Jun S Kim; John Di Capua; Sulaiman Somani; Kimberly-Anne Tan; Ralph J Mobbs; Samuel K Cho
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.071

7.  Revision and stabilisation surgery of an adult degenerative scoliosis.

Authors:  Max Aebi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Selection of proximal fusion level for adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

Authors:  Kyu-Jung Cho; Se-Il Suk; Seung-Rim Park; Jin-Hyok Kim; Jae-Hoon Jung
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-10-14       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Radiographic progression of degenerative lumbar scoliosis after short segment decompression and fusion.

Authors:  Dae-Woo Hwang; Suk-Ha Jeon; Ju-Wan Kim; Eung-Ha Kim; Jung-Hee Lee; Kyoung-Jun Park
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2009-12-31

Review 10.  Surgical treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis.

Authors:  Kyu-Jung Cho; Young-Tae Kim; Sang-Hyun Shin; Se-Il Suk
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-06-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.