Alan H Daniels1, Heiko Koller2, Shannon L Hiratzka3, Michael Mayer2, Oliver Meier2, Alec Gabriel Contag3, Adam E M Eltorai4, Jayme Hiratzka3, D Kojo Hamilton5, Christopher I Shaffrey6, Justin S Smith6, Shay Bess7, Eric O Klineberg8, Christopher P Ames9, Virginie Lafage10, Breton Line11, Frank J Schwab10, Robert A Hart3, International Spine Study Group11. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Adult Spinal Deformity Service, Brown University, 100 Butler Drive, Providence, RI, 02906, USA. alandanielsmd@gmail.com. 2. Spine-Center, Werner-Wicker-Clinic, Bad Wildungen, Germany. 3. Orthopaedics, Spinal Deformity Service, Swedish Health System, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Orthopedics, Adult Spinal Deformity Service, Brown University, 100 Butler Drive, Providence, RI, 02906, USA. 5. Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA. 6. Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, USA. 7. Orthopaedics, Denver International Spine Clinic. Presbyterian/St. Luke's Rocky Mountain Hospital for Children, Denver, CO, USA. 8. Orthopaedics, University of California, Davis, USA. 9. Neurosurgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA. 10. Orthopaedics, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA. 11. ISSGF, Littleton, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Controversy persists as to whether to end multilevel thoracolumbar fusions caudally at L5 or S1. Some argue that stopping at L5 may preserve greater function, but there are few data comparing functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness in patients with fusion to L5 versus S1. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients undergoing multilevel thoracolumbar fusions with an L5 caudal endpoint have a better lumbosacral function than patients with an S1 caudal endpoint. METHODS: Patients undergoing successful thoracolumbar fusion of 5 or more levels to L5 or S1, with solid fusion at 2 year follow-up, were examined from a single European center in addition to a multi-center North American database of 237 patients. In total, 40 patients with a distal stopping point of L5 were matched with a subset of 40 patients with a distal endpoint of S1 ± pelvic fixation. The L5 and S1 groups were matched for the final Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA C7-S1), number of fusion levels, and age. Impacts of lumbar stiffness on function as measured by the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI) were compared using the conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: After matching, there was no significant difference between the S1 and L5 groups for the final ODI (29.22 ± 21.6 for S1 versus 29.21 ± 21.7 for L5; p = 0.98), SVA (29.5 ± 40.3 mm for S1 versus 33.7 ± 37.1 mm for L5; p = 0.97), mean age (61.6 ± 11.0 years for S1 versus 58.3 ± 12.6 years for L5; p = 0.23), and number of fusion levels (9.7 ± 3.3 levels for S1 versus 9.0 ± 3 levels for L5; p = 0.34). The final 2-year postoperative LSDI scores were not significantly different between the S1 group (28.08 ± 21.47) and L5 group (29.21 ± 21.66) (hazard ratio 0.99, 95 % CI 0.97-1.03, p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: The analysis of patients with multilevel thoracolumbar fusions demonstrated that after minimum 2 year follow-up, self-reported functional impacts of lumbar stiffness were not significantly different between the patients with distal endpoints of L5 versus S1. The choice of distal fusion level of L5 does not appear to retain sufficient spinal flexibility to substantially affect postoperative function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
PURPOSE: Controversy persists as to whether to end multilevel thoracolumbar fusions caudally at L5 or S1. Some argue that stopping at L5 may preserve greater function, but there are few data comparing functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness in patients with fusion to L5 versus S1. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients undergoing multilevel thoracolumbar fusions with an L5 caudal endpoint have a better lumbosacral function than patients with an S1 caudal endpoint. METHODS:Patients undergoing successful thoracolumbar fusion of 5 or more levels to L5 or S1, with solid fusion at 2 year follow-up, were examined from a single European center in addition to a multi-center North American database of 237 patients. In total, 40 patients with a distal stopping point of L5 were matched with a subset of 40 patients with a distal endpoint of S1 ± pelvic fixation. The L5 and S1 groups were matched for the final Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA C7-S1), number of fusion levels, and age. Impacts of lumbar stiffness on function as measured by the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI) were compared using the conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: After matching, there was no significant difference between the S1 and L5 groups for the final ODI (29.22 ± 21.6 for S1 versus 29.21 ± 21.7 for L5; p = 0.98), SVA (29.5 ± 40.3 mm for S1 versus 33.7 ± 37.1 mm for L5; p = 0.97), mean age (61.6 ± 11.0 years for S1 versus 58.3 ± 12.6 years for L5; p = 0.23), and number of fusion levels (9.7 ± 3.3 levels for S1 versus 9.0 ± 3 levels for L5; p = 0.34). The final 2-year postoperative LSDI scores were not significantly different between the S1 group (28.08 ± 21.47) and L5 group (29.21 ± 21.66) (hazard ratio 0.99, 95 % CI 0.97-1.03, p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: The analysis of patients with multilevel thoracolumbar fusions demonstrated that after minimum 2 year follow-up, self-reported functional impacts of lumbar stiffness were not significantly different between the patients with distal endpoints of L5 versus S1. The choice of distal fusion level of L5 does not appear to retain sufficient spinal flexibility to substantially affect postoperative function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Authors: Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Steven D Glassman; Sigurd H Berven; Frank J Schwab; Christopher L Hamill; William C Horton; Stephen L Ondra; Charles A Sansur; Keith H Bridwell Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Craig A Kuhns; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Courtney Amor; Ronald A Lehman; Jacob M Buchowski; Charles Edwards; Baldus Christine Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Charles C Edwards; Keith H Bridwell; Alpesh Patel; Anthony S Rinella; Annette Berra; Lawrence G Lenke Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468