STUDY DESIGN: The anterior column realignment (ACR) procedure was retrospectively reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To review surgical technique, complication avoidance, case examples, and published results on ACR. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For surgical correction of sagittal imbalance, three column osteotomies (3CO) have traditionally been employed for large degrees of correction at a single segment. However, 3CO procedures are technically challenging and carry high morbidity rates. ACR was developed as a less invasive procedure for restoring segmental lordosis. METHODS: The ACR surgical technique is reviewed. ACR involves either a lateral, trans-psoas or anterior retroperitoneal approach to sectioning the anterior longitudinal ligament/annulus and placing a hyperlordotic cage. ACR usually also involves a second stage posterior column osteotomy. Three case examples are presented. A review of literature on ACR papers was completed. RESULTS: Twelve papers met inclusion criteria. Ten to 27° of segmental lordosis were reported with use of hyperlordotic cages. 19° increase in mean intradiscal angle was reported when ACR was combined with posterior column osteotomy, 13° more than lateral lumbar interbody fusion alone without a hyperlordotic implant. Reported complication rates ranged from 18 to 47%. The most common minor complications were transient hip flexion weakness (9.3%) and transient paresthesia or dysesthesia (12%). There were few reports of major complications, such as bowel perforation (n = 1) or vascular injury (n = 1). Motor deficit was reported in 11 of 75 cases, lower than reported rates for 3CO. CONCLUSION: ACR is an emerging, less invasive technique for correction of sagittal deformity ACR has similar restorative capacity as other techniques with same or lower complication rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
STUDY DESIGN: The anterior column realignment (ACR) procedure was retrospectively reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To review surgical technique, complication avoidance, case examples, and published results on ACR. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For surgical correction of sagittal imbalance, three column osteotomies (3CO) have traditionally been employed for large degrees of correction at a single segment. However, 3CO procedures are technically challenging and carry high morbidity rates. ACR was developed as a less invasive procedure for restoring segmental lordosis. METHODS: The ACR surgical technique is reviewed. ACR involves either a lateral, trans-psoas or anterior retroperitoneal approach to sectioning the anterior longitudinal ligament/annulus and placing a hyperlordotic cage. ACR usually also involves a second stage posterior column osteotomy. Three case examples are presented. A review of literature on ACR papers was completed. RESULTS: Twelve papers met inclusion criteria. Ten to 27° of segmental lordosis were reported with use of hyperlordotic cages. 19° increase in mean intradiscal angle was reported when ACR was combined with posterior column osteotomy, 13° more than lateral lumbar interbody fusion alone without a hyperlordotic implant. Reported complication rates ranged from 18 to 47%. The most common minor complications were transient hip flexion weakness (9.3%) and transient paresthesia or dysesthesia (12%). There were few reports of major complications, such as bowel perforation (n = 1) or vascular injury (n = 1). Motor deficit was reported in 11 of 75 cases, lower than reported rates for 3CO. CONCLUSION: ACR is an emerging, less invasive technique for correction of sagittal deformity ACR has similar restorative capacity as other techniques with same or lower complication rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
Authors: Luigi La Barbera; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Christian Liebsch; Tomaso Villa; Andrea Luca; Fabio Galbusera; Marco Brayda-Bruno Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Donald J Blaskiewicz; Jeffrey E Harris; Patrick P Han; Alexander W Turner; Gregory M Mundis Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Nathan Han; Nathan Pratt; M Farooq Usmani; Erik Hayman; Salazar Jones; Parker Johnsen; Alexandra E Thomson; Ivan Ye; Timothy Chryssikos; Ashish Sharma; Joshua Olexa; Daniel L Cavanaugh; Eugene Y Koh; Kendall Buraimoh; Steven Ludwig; Charles Sansur Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: Kevin Phan; Ya Ruth Huo; Jarred A Hogan; Joshua Xu; Alexander Dunn; Samuel K Cho; Ralph J Mobbs; Patrick McKenna; Trichy Rajagopal; Farhaan Altaf Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2016-06
Authors: Jeffrey M Hills; S Tim Yoon; John M Rhee; Dheera Ananthakrishnan; Elliot Kim; Keith W Michael; Byron Stephens Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2019-04-30
Authors: Jakub Godzik; Bernardo de Andrada Pereira; Courtney Hemphill; Corey T Walker; Joshua T Wewel; Jay D Turner; Juan S Uribe Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-05-28