Literature DB >> 24766290

Surgical treatment of pathological loss of lumbar lordosis (flatback) in patients with normal sagittal vertical axis achieves similar clinical improvement as surgical treatment of elevated sagittal vertical axis: clinical article.

Justin S Smith1, Manish Singh, Eric Klineberg, Christopher I Shaffrey, Virginie Lafage, Frank J Schwab, Themistocles Protopsaltis, David Ibrahimi, Justin K Scheer, Gregory Mundis, Munish C Gupta, Richard Hostin, Vedat Deviren, Khaled Kebaish, Robert Hart, Douglas C Burton, Shay Bess, Christopher P Ames.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Increased sagittal vertical axis (SVA) correlates strongly with pain and disability for adults with spinal deformity. A subset of patients with sagittal spinopelvic malalignment (SSM) have flatback deformity (pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis [PI-LL] mismatch > 10°) but remain sagittally compensated with normal SVA. Few data exist for SSM patients with flatback deformity and normal SVA. The authors' objective was to compare baseline disability and treatment outcomes for patients with compensated (SVA < 5 cm and PI-LL mismatch > 10°) and decompensated (SVA > 5 cm) SSM.
METHODS: The study was a multicenter, prospective analysis of adults with spinal deformity who consecutively underwent surgical treatment for SSM. Inclusion criteria included age older than 18 years, presence of adult spinal deformity with SSM, plan for surgical treatment, and minimum 1-year follow-up data. Patients with SSM were divided into 2 groups: those with compensated SSM (SVA < 5 cm and PI-LL mismatch > 10°) and those with decompensated SSM (SVA ≥ 5 cm). Baseline and 1-year follow-up radiographic and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index, Short Form-36 scores, and Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores. Percentages of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) were also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 125 patients (27 compensated and 98 decompensated) met inclusion criteria. Compared with patients in the compensated group, patients in the decompensated group were older (62.9 vs. 55.1 years; p = 0.004) and had less scoliosis (43° vs 54°; p = 0.002), greater SVA (12.0 cm vs. 1.7 cm; p < 0.001), greater PI-LL mismatch (26° vs. 20°; p = 0.013), and poorer HRQOL scores (Oswestry Disability Index, Short Form-36 physical component score, Scoliosis Research Society-22 total; p ≤ 0.016). Although these baseline HRQOL differences between the groups reached statistical significance, only the mean difference in Short Form-36 physical component score reached threshold for MCID. Compared with baseline assessment, at 1 year after surgery improvement was noted for patients in both groups for mean SVA (compensated -1.1 cm, decompensated +4.8 cm; p ≤ 0.009), mean PI-LL mismatch (compensated 6°, decompensated 5°; p < 0.001), and all HRQOL measures assessed (p ≤ 0.005). No significant differences were found between the compensated and decompensated groups in the magnitude of HRQOL score improvement or in the percentages of patients achieving MCID for each of the outcome measures assessed.
CONCLUSIONS: Decompensated SSM patients with elevated SVA experience significant disability; however, the amount of disability in compensated SSM patients with flatback deformity caused by PI-LL mismatch but normal SVA is underappreciated. Surgical correction of SSM demonstrated similar radiographic and HRQOL score improvements for patients in both groups. Evaluation of SSM should extend beyond measuring SVA. Among patients with concordant pain and disability, PI-LL mismatch must be evaluated for SSM patients and can be considered a primary indication for surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HRQOL = health-related quality of life; MCID = minimal clinically important difference; PI-LL = pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis; SF-36 = Short Form–36; SRS-22 = Scoliosis Research Society–22; SSM = sagittal spinopelvic malalignment; SVA = sagittal vertical axis; adult; deformity; flatback; lumbar; lumbar lordosis; outcome; pelvic parameter; sagittal imbalance; spine; surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24766290     DOI: 10.3171/2014.3.SPINE13580

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  14 in total

1.  Analysis of an unexplored group of sagittal deformity patients: low pelvic tilt despite positive sagittal malalignment.

Authors:  Emmanuelle Ferrero; Shaleen Vira; Christopher P Ames; Khaled Kebaish; Ibrahim Obeid; Michael F O'Brien; Munish C Gupta; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Justin S Smith; Gregory M Mundis; Vincent Challier; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; Frank J Schwab; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-05-31       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Femoral head retroposition as a potential compensatory mechanism in patients with a severe mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis.

Authors:  Xiaofei Cheng; Kai Zhang; Xiaojiang Sun; Changqing Zhao; Hua Li; Jie Zhao
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Radiographic outcomes of anterior column realignment for adult sagittal plane deformity: a multicenter analysis.

Authors:  Jay D Turner; Behrooz A Akbarnia; Robert K Eastlack; Ramin Bagheri; Stacie Nguyen; Luiz Pimenta; Rex Marco; Vedat Deviren; Juan Uribe; Gregory M Mundis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Complications of surgical intervention in adult lumbar scoliosis.

Authors:  Peter A Christiansen; Michael LaBagnara; Durga R Sure; Christopher I Shaffrey; Justin S Smith
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-09

5.  Surgical management of coronal and sagittal imbalance of the spine without PSO: a multicentric cohort study on compensated adult degenerative deformities.

Authors:  Alessandro Ramieri; Massimo Miscusi; Maurizio Domenicucci; Antonino Raco; Giuseppe Costanzo
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Sagittal age-adjusted score (SAAS) for adult spinal deformity (ASD) more effectively predicts surgical outcomes and proximal junctional kyphosis than previous classifications.

Authors:  Renaud Lafage; Justin S Smith; Jonathan Elysee; Peter Passias; Shay Bess; Eric Klineberg; Han Jo Kim; Christopher Shaffrey; Douglas Burton; Richard Hostin; Gregory Mundis; Christopher Ames; Frank Schwab; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-08-30

7.  A Novel 4-Rod Technique Offers Potential to Reduce Rod Breakage and Pseudarthrosis in Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomies for Adult Spinal Deformity Correction.

Authors:  Sachin Gupta; Murat Sakir Eksi; Christopher P Ames; Vedat Deviren; Blythe Durbin-Johnson; Justin S Smith; Munish C Gupta
Journal:  Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 2.703

8.  Mid- and long-term clinical outcomes of corrective fusion surgery which did not achieve sufficient pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis value for adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Kentaro Yamada; Yuichiro Abe; Yasushi Yanagibashi; Takahiko Hyakumachi; Shigenobu Satoh
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2015-02-11

Review 9.  State-of-the-art reviews predictive modeling in adult spinal deformity: applications of advanced analytics.

Authors:  Rushikesh S Joshi; Darryl Lau; Justin K Scheer; Miquel Serra-Burriel; Alba Vila-Casademunt; Shay Bess; Justin S Smith; Ferran Pellise; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-05-18

10.  Development of predictive models for all individual questions of SRS-22R after adult spinal deformity surgery: a step toward individualized medicine.

Authors:  Christopher P Ames; Justin S Smith; Ferran Pellisé; Michael Kelly; Jeffrey L Gum; Ahmet Alanay; Emre Acaroğlu; Francisco Javier Sánchez Pérez-Grueso; Frank S Kleinstück; Ibrahim Obeid; Alba Vila-Casademunt; Christopher I Shaffrey; Douglas C Burton; Virginie Lafage; Frank J Schwab; Christopher I Shaffrey; Shay Bess; Miquel Serra-Burriel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.