Ibrahim Obeid1, Pedro Berjano2, Claudio Lamartina2, Daniel Chopin3, Louis Boissière4, Anouar Bourghli5. 1. Orthopedic Spinal Surgery Unit 1, Pellegrin Hospital, Place Amélie Raba-Léon, 33076, Bordeaux Cedex, France. ibrahim.obeid@gmail.com. 2. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. 3. Neuro-Orthopedic Spine Unit, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. 4. Orthopedic Spinal Surgery Unit 1, Pellegrin Hospital, Place Amélie Raba-Léon, 33076, Bordeaux Cedex, France. 5. Orthopedic and Spinal Surgery Department, Kingdom Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In adult spinal deformity (ASD), sagittal imbalance and sagittal malalignment have been extensively described in the literature during the past decade, whereas coronal imbalance and coronal malalignment (CM) have been given little attention. CM can cause severe impairment in adult scoliosis and ASD patients, as compensatory mechanisms are limited. The aim of this paper is to develop a comprehensive classification of coronal spinopelvic malalignment and to suggest a treatment algorithm for this condition. METHODS: This is an expert's opinion consensus based on a retrospective review of CM cases where different patterns of CM were identified, in addition to treatment modifiers. After the identification of the subgroups for each category, surgical planning for each subgroup could be specified. RESULTS: Two main CM patterns were defined: concave CM (type 1) and convex CM (type 2), and the following modifiers were identified as potentially influencing the choice of surgical strategy: stiffness of the main coronal curve, coronal mobility of the lumbosacral junction and degeneration of the lumbosacral junction. A surgical algorithm was proposed to deal with each situation combining the different patterns and their modifiers. CONCLUSION: Coronal malalignment is a frequent condition, usually associated to sagittal malalignment, but it is often misunderstood. Its classification should help the spine surgeon to better understand the full spinal alignment of ASD patients. In concave CM, the correction should be obtained at the apex of the main curve. In convex CM, the correction should be obtained at the lumbosacral junction. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
INTRODUCTION: In adult spinal deformity (ASD), sagittal imbalance and sagittal malalignment have been extensively described in the literature during the past decade, whereas coronal imbalance and coronal malalignment (CM) have been given little attention. CM can cause severe impairment in adult scoliosis and ASDpatients, as compensatory mechanisms are limited. The aim of this paper is to develop a comprehensive classification of coronal spinopelvic malalignment and to suggest a treatment algorithm for this condition. METHODS: This is an expert's opinion consensus based on a retrospective review of CM cases where different patterns of CM were identified, in addition to treatment modifiers. After the identification of the subgroups for each category, surgical planning for each subgroup could be specified. RESULTS: Two main CM patterns were defined: concave CM (type 1) and convex CM (type 2), and the following modifiers were identified as potentially influencing the choice of surgical strategy: stiffness of the main coronal curve, coronal mobility of the lumbosacral junction and degeneration of the lumbosacral junction. A surgical algorithm was proposed to deal with each situation combining the different patterns and their modifiers. CONCLUSION:Coronal malalignment is a frequent condition, usually associated to sagittal malalignment, but it is often misunderstood. Its classification should help the spine surgeon to better understand the full spinal alignment of ASDpatients. In concave CM, the correction should be obtained at the apex of the main curve. In convex CM, the correction should be obtained at the lumbosacral junction. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Garrett K Harada; Zakariah K Siyaji; G Michael Mallow; Alexander L Hornung; Fayyazul Hassan; Bryce A Basques; Haseeb A Mohammed; Arash J Sayari; Dino Samartzis; Howard S An Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Andrea Redaelli; Francesco Langella; Michal Dziubak; Riccardo Cecchinato; Marco Damilano; Giuseppe Peretti; Pedro Berjano; Claudio Lamartina Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Scott L Zuckerman; Zeeshan M Sardar; Christopher S Lai; Gerard F Marciano; Mena G Kerolus; Ian A Buchanan; Alex S Ha; Meghan Cerpa; Michael P Kelly; Stéphane Bourret; Kazuhiro Hasegawa; Hee-Kit Wong; Gabriel Liu; Hwee Weng Dennis Hey; Hend Riahi; Jean-Charles Le Huec; Lawrence G Lenke Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Anouar Bourghli; Louis Boissiere; Thomas Chevillotte; Maxime Huneidi; Clement Silvestre; Kariman Abelin-Genevois; Pierre Grobost; Javier Pizones; Pierre Roussouly; Ibrahim Obeid Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 3.134