Literature DB >> 24785491

Long fusion from sacrum to thoracic spine for adult spinal deformity with sagittal imbalance: upper versus lower thoracic spine as site of upper instrumented vertebra.

Takahito Fujimori1, Shinichi Inoue, Hai Le, William W Schairer, Sigurd H Berven, Bobby K Tay, Vedat Deviren, Shane Burch, Motoki Iwasaki, Serena S Hu.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Despite increasing numbers of patients with adult spinal deformity, it is unclear how to select the optimal upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) in long fusion surgery for these patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of vertebrae in the upper thoracic (UT) versus lower thoracic (LT) spine as the upper instrumented vertebra in long fusion surgery for adult spinal deformity.
METHODS: Patients who underwent fusion from the sacrum to the thoracic spine for adult spinal deformity with sagittal imbalance at a single medical center were studied. The patients with a sagittal vertical axis (SVA) ≥ 40 mm who had radiographs and completed the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) preoperatively and at final follow-up (≥ 2 years postoperatively) were included.
RESULTS: Eighty patients (mean age of 61.1 ± 10.9 years; 69 women and 11 men) met the inclusion criteria. There were 31 patients in the UT group and 49 patients in the LT group. The mean follow-up period was 3.6 ± 1.6 years. The physical component summary (PCS) score of the SF-12 significantly improved from the preoperative assessment to final follow-up in each group (UT, 34 to 41; LT, 29 to 37; p = 0.001). This improvement reached the minimum clinically important difference in both groups. There was no significant difference in PCS score improvement between the 2 groups (p = 0.8). The UT group had significantly greater preoperative lumbar lordosis (28° vs 18°, p = 0.03) and greater thoracic kyphosis (36° vs 18°, p = 0.001). After surgery, there was no significant difference in lumbar lordosis or thoracic kyphosis. The UT group had significantly greater postoperative cervicothoracic kyphosis (20° vs 11°, p = 0.009). The UT group tended to maintain a smaller positive SVA (51 vs 73 mm, p = 0.08) and smaller T-1 spinopelvic inclination (-2.6° vs 0.6°, p = 0.06). The LT group tended to have more proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), although the difference did not reach statistical significance. Radiographic PJK was 32% in the UT group and 41% in the LT group (p = 0.4). Surgical PJK was 6.4% in the UT group and 10% in the LT group (p = 0.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Both the UT and LT groups demonstrated significant improvement in clinical and radiographic outcomes. A significant difference was not observed in improvement of clinical outcomes between the 2 groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24785491     DOI: 10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS13541

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Focus        ISSN: 1092-0684            Impact factor:   4.047


  13 in total

Review 1.  Spinal osteotomy in the presence of massive lumbar epidural scarring.

Authors:  Vincent Arlet
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Proximal junctional kyphosis following adult spinal deformity surgery.

Authors:  Samuel K Cho; John I Shin; Yongjung J Kim
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  An international consensus on the appropriate evaluation and treatment for adults with spinal deformity.

Authors:  Sigurd H Berven; Steven J Kamper; Niccole M Germscheid; Benny Dahl; Christopher I Shaffrey; Lawrence G Lenke; Stephen J Lewis; Kenneth M Cheung; Ahmet Alanay; Manabu Ito; David W Polly; Yong Qiu; Marinus de Kleuver
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity with long spinal fusion from T9/T10 to the ilium.

Authors:  Tatsuya Yasuda; Tomohiko Hasegawa; Yu Yamato; Sho Kobayashi; Daisuke Togawa; Shin Oe; Yukihiro Matsuyama
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-06

5.  Full-Body Radiographic Analysis of Postoperative Deviations From Age-Adjusted Alignment Goals in Adult Spinal Deformity Correction and Related Compensatory Recruitment.

Authors:  Peter G Passias; Cyrus M Jalai; Bassel G Diebo; Dana L Cruz; Gregory W Poorman; Aaron J Buckland; Louis M Day; Samantha R Horn; Barthélemy Liabaud; Renaud Lafage; Alexandra Soroceanu; Joseph F Baker; Shearwood McClelland; Jonathan H Oren; Thomas J Errico; Frank J Schwab; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-04-30

6.  Factors influencing upper-most instrumented vertebrae selection in adult spinal deformity patients: qualitative case-based survey of deformity surgeons.

Authors:  Sohrab Virk; Uwe Platz; Shay Bess; Douglas Burton; Peter Passias; Munish Gupta; Themistocles Protopsaltis; Han Jo Kim; Justin S Smith; Robert Eastlack; Khaled Kebaish; Gregory M Mundis; Pierce Nunley; Christopher Shaffrey; Jeffrey Gum; Virginie Lafage; Frank Schwab
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-03

Review 7.  Long fusion correction of degenerative adult spinal deformity and the selection of the upper or lower thoracic region as the site of proximal instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xin Fu; Xiao-Lei Sun; Jonathan A Harris; Sun-Ren Sheng; Hua-Zi Xu; Yong-Long Chi; Ai-Min Wu
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Proximal Junctional Kyphosis and Proximal Junctional Failure Following Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

Authors:  Seung-Jae Hyun; Byoung Hun Lee; Jong-Hwa Park; Ki-Jeong Kim; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2017-12-31

9.  Biomechanical Analysis of the Proximal Adjacent Segment after Multilevel Instrumentation of the Thoracic Spine: Do Hooks Ease the Transition?

Authors:  Melodie F Metzger; Samuel T Robinson; Mark T Svet; John C Liu; Frank L Acosta
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-08-21

Review 10.  Proximal Junctional Kyphosis: Diagnosis, Pathogenesis, and Treatment.

Authors:  Jaewon Lee; Ye-Soo Park
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-06-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.