Sleiman Haddad1,2, Alba Vila-Casademunt3, Çaglar Yilgor4, Susana Nuñez-Pereira3,5, Manuel Ramirez3,5, Javier Pizones6, Ahmet Alanay4, Frank Kleinstuck7, Ibrahim Obeid8, Francisco Javier Sánchez Pérez-Grueso6, Ferran Pellisé3,5. 1. Spine Research Unit, Vall d'Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain. sleimanhaddad@gmail.com. 2. Spine Surgery Unit, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Pg Vall Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. sleimanhaddad@gmail.com. 3. Spine Research Unit, Vall d'Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Acibadem University, Istanbul, Turkey. 5. Spine Surgery Unit, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Pg Vall Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Spine Surgery Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 7. Spine Center Division, Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, Switzerland. 8. Spine Surgery Unit, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Anterior approaches are gaining popularity for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgeries especially with the introduction of hyperlordotic cages and improvement in MIS techniques. Combined Approaches provide powerful segmental sagittal correction potential and increase the surface area available for fusion in ASD surgery, both of which would improve overall. This is the first study directly comparing surgical outcomes between combined anterior-posterior approaches and all-posterior approach in a matched ASD population. METHODS: This is a retrospective matched control cohort analysis with substitution using a multicenter prospectively collected ASD data of patients with > 2 year FU. Matching criteria include: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists Score, Lumbar Cobb angle, sagittal deformity (Global tilt) and ODI. RESULTS: In total, 1024 ASD patients were available for analysis. 29 Combined Approaches patients met inclusion criteria, and only 22 could be matched (1:2 ratio). Preoperative non-matched demographical, clinical, surgical and radiological parameters were comparable between both groups. Combined approaches had longer surgeries (548 mns vs 283) with more blood loss (2850 ml vs 1471) and needed longer ICU stays (74 h vs 27). Despite added morbidity, they had comparable complication rates but with significantly less readmissions (9.1% vs 38.1%) and reoperations (18.2% vs 43.2%) at 2 years. Combined Approaches achieved more individualised and harmonious deformity correction initially. At the 2 years control, Combined Approaches patients reported better outcomes as measured by COMI and SRS scores. This trend was maintained at 3 years. CONCLUSION: Despite an increased initial surgical invasiveness, combined approaches seem to achieve more harmonious correction with superior sagittal deformity control; they need fewer revisions and have improved long-term functional outcomes when compared to all-posterior approaches for ASD deformity correction.
PURPOSE: Anterior approaches are gaining popularity for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgeries especially with the introduction of hyperlordotic cages and improvement in MIS techniques. Combined Approaches provide powerful segmental sagittal correction potential and increase the surface area available for fusion in ASD surgery, both of which would improve overall. This is the first study directly comparing surgical outcomes between combined anterior-posterior approaches and all-posterior approach in a matched ASD population. METHODS: This is a retrospective matched control cohort analysis with substitution using a multicenter prospectively collected ASD data of patients with > 2 year FU. Matching criteria include: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists Score, Lumbar Cobb angle, sagittal deformity (Global tilt) and ODI. RESULTS: In total, 1024 ASD patients were available for analysis. 29 Combined Approaches patients met inclusion criteria, and only 22 could be matched (1:2 ratio). Preoperative non-matched demographical, clinical, surgical and radiological parameters were comparable between both groups. Combined approaches had longer surgeries (548 mns vs 283) with more blood loss (2850 ml vs 1471) and needed longer ICU stays (74 h vs 27). Despite added morbidity, they had comparable complication rates but with significantly less readmissions (9.1% vs 38.1%) and reoperations (18.2% vs 43.2%) at 2 years. Combined Approaches achieved more individualised and harmonious deformity correction initially. At the 2 years control, Combined Approaches patients reported better outcomes as measured by COMI and SRS scores. This trend was maintained at 3 years. CONCLUSION: Despite an increased initial surgical invasiveness, combined approaches seem to achieve more harmonious correction with superior sagittal deformity control; they need fewer revisions and have improved long-term functional outcomes when compared to all-posterior approaches for ASD deformity correction.
Authors: Christopher P Ames; Justin K Scheer; Virginie Lafage; Justin S Smith; Shay Bess; Sigurd H Berven; Gregory M Mundis; Rajiv K Sethi; Donald A Deinlein; Jeffrey D Coe; Lloyd A Hey; Michael D Daubs Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2016-06-16
Authors: D Greg Anderson; Amirali Sayadipour; Kevin Shelby; Todd J Albert; Alexander R Vaccaro; Michael S Weinstein Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Hari T Vigneswaran; Zachary J Grabel; Craig P Eberson; Mark A Palumbo; Alan H Daniels Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Peter G Passias; Cyrus M Jalai; Nancy Worley; Shaleen Vira; Bryan Marascalchi; Shearwood McClelland; Virginie Lafage; Thomas J Errico Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2017-09
Authors: Avraam Ploumis; Chunhui Wu; Gustav Fischer; Amir A Mehbod; Wentien Wu; Antonio Faundez; Ensor E Transfeldt Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2008-04