John Attenello1, Charles Chang2, Yu-Po Lee3, Vinko Zlomislic2, Steven Robert Garfin2, Richard Todd Allen2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UC San Diego Health System, University of California, San Diego. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UC Irvine Health, University of California, Irvine.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Review. OBJECTIVES: Compare clinical outcomes and radiographic correction of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) patients treated with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), combined either with percutaneous (no laminectomy) versus open laminectomy/pedicle screw instrumentation. METHODS: Twenty-two ADS patients undergoing combined LLIF and posterior instrumentation were divided into two groups: thirteen patients underwent LLIF with open laminectomy and posterior pedicle instrumentation (Group-1, six revision); nine patients underwent LLIF with percutaneous pedicle instrumentation (no decompression) (Group-2). Radiographs, CT/MRI, peri-operative complications, VAS, SF-12, and ODI were measured. RESULTS: Average follow up was 22 months. In Group-1 and Group-2, respectively: Mean coronal Cobb angle corrected 12.6° and 5.8°; Mean regional lumbar lordosis improved 11.1° and 3.8°; Pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch corrected to within +/-9° in 46% and 0% of patients; Mean VAS improved from 5.4 to 2.8 and 6.3 to 1; Mean ODI improved 19% and 22%. Improvements were found in SF-12 PCS and MCS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Both open and percutaneous posterior techniques following LLIF significantly improved clinical outcomes. Open procedures resulted in significantly better radiographic improvements but also higher complication rates. LLIF with percutaneous posterior fixation, without decompression, should be considered part of the algorithm in select ADS patients with remaining compensatory mechanisms and understanding that greater degrees of correction may require an open, more extensive approach.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Review. OBJECTIVES: Compare clinical outcomes and radiographic correction of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) patients treated with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), combined either with percutaneous (no laminectomy) versus open laminectomy/pedicle screw instrumentation. METHODS: Twenty-two ADS patients undergoing combined LLIF and posterior instrumentation were divided into two groups: thirteen patients underwent LLIF with open laminectomy and posterior pedicle instrumentation (Group-1, six revision); nine patients underwent LLIF with percutaneous pedicle instrumentation (no decompression) (Group-2). Radiographs, CT/MRI, peri-operative complications, VAS, SF-12, and ODI were measured. RESULTS: Average follow up was 22 months. In Group-1 and Group-2, respectively: Mean coronal Cobb angle corrected 12.6° and 5.8°; Mean regional lumbar lordosis improved 11.1° and 3.8°; Pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch corrected to within +/-9° in 46% and 0% of patients; Mean VAS improved from 5.4 to 2.8 and 6.3 to 1; Mean ODI improved 19% and 22%. Improvements were found in SF-12 PCS and MCS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Both open and percutaneous posterior techniques following LLIF significantly improved clinical outcomes. Open procedures resulted in significantly better radiographic improvements but also higher complication rates. LLIF with percutaneous posterior fixation, without decompression, should be considered part of the algorithm in select ADS patients with remaining compensatory mechanisms and understanding that greater degrees of correction may require an open, more extensive approach.
Authors: Christopher K Kepler; Russel C Huang; Amit K Sharma; Dennis S Meredith; Ochuko Metitiri; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi; Frank P Cammisa Journal: Orthop Surg Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.071
Authors: Jim A Youssef; Paul C McAfee; Catherine A Patty; Erin Raley; Spencer DeBauche; Erin Shucosky; Liana Chotikul Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Michael D Daubs; Lawrence G Lenke; Gene Cheh; Georgia Stobbs; Keith H Bridwell Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: John K Birknes; Andrew P White; Todd J Albert; Christopher I Shaffrey; James S Harrop Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.654
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: Mirza Pojskic; Benjamin Saβ; Benjamin Völlger; Christopher Nimsky; Barbara Carl Journal: Bosn J Basic Med Sci Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 3.363
Authors: Mustfa K Manzur; Andre M Samuel; Kyle W Morse; Karim A Shafi; Bridget Jivanelli Gatto; Catherine Himo Gang; Sheeraz A Qureshi; Sravisht Iyer Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2021-05-20