Literature DB >> 32675607

Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis Associated With Spinal Stenosis: Does the PI-LL Matter?

Hao Bai1, Yaobin Li, Chenxin Liu, Yan Zhao, Xiong Zhao, Wei Lei, Yafei Feng, Zixiang Wu.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits of long and short fusion treatments, and to identify factors potentially aiding surgeons' decision making about the surgical management of degenerative lumbar scoliosis associated with spinal stenosis (DLSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The comparative effectiveness of long and short segment fusion for the treatment of DLSS remains controversial.
METHODS: Fifty-three patients with symptomatic DLSS managed by posterior-only fusion surgery were enrolled in this study. Twenty patients underwent short fusion (fewer than two segments), and 33 patients had more than three segments fused. The radiological outcomes were assessed by radiography. Health-related quality of life data, including visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, were collected at all preoperative and follow-up visits.
RESULTS: The short and long fusion groups showed significant differences in the change in the Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 11.2°), lumbar lordosis (3.9° vs. 11.5°), and pelvic incidence minus the lumbar lordosis angle (PI - LL; 3.2° vs. 11.2°). Both the short and long fusion achieved significant changes in low back pain and leg pain. Patients with PI -LLs > 10° had more relief of low back pain after long fusion (VAS 4.0 ± 2.0) than after short fusion (VAS 2.6 ± 1.7). Patients with PI - LLs > 10° showed significantly improved walking ability after long fusion (ODI 1.0 ± 0.8). The improvement in standing ability after short fusion was greater when PI - LL ≤ 10°(ODI 0.9 ± 0.6).
CONCLUSION: Long segment fusion can relieve low back pain better and improve walking ability when PI-LL is mismatched, whereas short segment fusion is more advantageous in improving standing ability in cases of more balanced sagittal spinopelvic alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32675607     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003465

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  4 in total

1.  Adult idiopathic de novo lumbar scoliosis: Analysis of surgical treatment in 14 patients by "only fixation".

Authors:  Atul Goel; Neha Jadhav; Abhidha Shah; Survendra Rai; Ravikiran Vutha; Saswat Dandpat; Arjun Dhar; Apurva Prasad
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2020-06-05

2.  Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yijian Zhang; Dongdong Lu; Wei Ji; Fan He; Angela Carley Chen; Huilin Yang; Xuesong Zhu
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2020-09-26       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Variation in Global Spinal Sagittal Parameters in Asymptomatic Adults with 11 Thoracic Vertebrae, four Lumbar Vertebrae, and six Lumbar Vertebrae.

Authors:  Ying-Zhao Yan; Ben Wang; Xiao-Qin Huang; Xuanliang Ru; Xiang-Yang Wang; Hang-Bo Qu
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 2.071

4.  Impact of sarcopenia and sagittal parameters on the residual back pain after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.

Authors:  Jia Li; Xiangbei Qi; Jiashen Bo; Xuan Zhao; Zijian Hua; Yong Shen
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-02-20       Impact factor: 2.359

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.