Should patients with lumbar stenosis and grade I spondylolisthesis be treated differently based on spinopelvic alignment? A retrospective, two-year, propensity matched, comparison of patient-reported outcome measures and clinical outcomes from multiple sites within a single health system

Distal Lumbar Lordosis is Associated With Reoperation for Adjacent Segment Disease After Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Conditions

STUDY DESIGN

A single centre retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies have suggested that distal lordosis (L4-S1, DL) remains constant across all pelvic incidence (PI) subgroups, whilst proximal lordosis (L1-L4, PL) varies. We sought to investigate the impact of post-operative DL on adjacent segment disease (ASD) requiring reoperation in patients undergoing lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions.

METHODS

Patients undergoing 1-3 level lumbar fusion with the two senior authors between 2007-16 were included. Demographic and radiographic data were recorded. Univariate, multivariate binary logistic regression, and Kaplan Meier survivorship analyses were performed.

RESULTS

335 patients were included in the final analysis. Most had single (67%) or two (31%) level fusions. The mean follow-up was 64-month. Fifty-seven patients (17%) underwent reoperation for ASD at an average of 78-month post-operatively (R group). The R group had a significantly lower mean post-operative DL (27.3 vs 31.1 deg, P < .001) and mean PI (55.5 vs 59.2 deg, P < .05). On univariate analysis, patients with a post-operative DL of <35 deg had higher odds of reoperation for ASD than those with a post-operative DL of ≥35 deg (OR 2.7, P = .016). In the multivariate model, post-operative DL, low/average PI, and spondylolisthesis were all significantly associated with reoperation for ASD.

CONCLUSION

This study provides preliminary support to an association between post-operative distal lumbar lordosis and risk of reoperation for ASD in patients undergoing fusions for degenerative conditions. Further multicentre prospective study is needed to independently confirm this association and identify the impact of restoration of physiological distal lumbar lordosis on long term patient outcomes.

Clinical effectiveness of reduction and fusion versus in situ fusion in the management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of reduction and fusion with in situ fusion in the management of patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria were: (1) comparative studies of reduction and fusion versus in situ fusion for DLS patients, (2) outcomes reported as VAS/NRS, ODI, JOA score, operating time, blood loss, complication rate, fusion rate, or reoperation rate, (3) randomized controlled trials and observational studies published in English from the inception of the databases to January 2023. The exclusion criteria included: (1) reviews, case series, case reports, letters, and conference reports, (2) in vitro biomechanical studies and computational modeling studies, (3) no report on study outcomes. The risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was conducted to assess the risk of bias of RCTs and observational studies, respectively.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 704 patients were included (375 reduction and fusion, 329 in situ fusion). Operating time was significantly longer in the reduction and fusion group compared to in situ fusion group (weighted mean difference 7.20; 95% confidence interval 0.19, 14.21; P = 0.04). No additional significant intergroup differences were noted in terms of other outcomes analyzed.

CONCLUSION

While the reduction and fusion group demonstrated a statistically longer operating time compared to the in situ fusion group, the clinical significance of this difference was minimal. The findings suggest no substantial superiority of lumbar fusion with reduction over without reduction for the management of DLS.

Segmental Sagittal Alignment in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Review of Evidence-Based Evaluation of Preoperative Measurement, Surgical Planning, Intraoperative Execution, and Postoperative Evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Maintaining and restoring global and regional sagittal alignment is a well-established priority that improves patient outcomes in patients with adult spinal deformity. However, the benefit of restoring segmental (level-by-level) alignment in lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions is not widely agreed on. The purpose of this review was to summarize intraoperative techniques to achieve segmental fixation and the impact of segmental lordosis on patient-reported and surgical outcomes.

METHODS

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were queried for the literature reporting lumbar alignment for degenerative lumbar spinal pathology. Reports were assessed for data regarding the impact of intraoperative surgical factors on postoperative segmental sagittal alignment and patient-reported outcome measures. Included studies were further categorized into groups related to patient positioning, fusion and fixation, and interbody device (technique, material, angle, and augmentation).

RESULTS

A total of 885 studies were screened, of which 43 met inclusion criteria examining segmental rather than regional or global alignment. Of these, 3 examined patient positioning, 8 examined fusion and fixation, 3 examined case parameters, 26 examined or compared different interbody fusion techniques, 5 examined postoperative patient-reported outcomes, and 3 examined the occurrence of adjacent segment disease. The data support a link between segmental alignment and patient positioning, surgical technique, and adjacent segment disease but have insufficient evidence to support a relationship with patient-reported outcomes, cage subsidence, or pseudoarthrosis.

CONCLUSION

This review explores segmental correction's impact on short-segment lumbar fusion outcomes, finding the extent of correction to depend on patient positioning and choice of interbody cage. Notably, inadequate restoration of lumbar lordosis is associated with adjacent segment degeneration. Nevertheless, conclusive evidence linking segmental alignment to patient-reported outcomes, cage subsidence, or pseudoarthrosis remains limited, underscoring the need for future research.