Sagittal spinopelvic malalignment in degenerative scoliosis patients: isolated correction of symptomatic levels and clinical decision-making

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for correction of lumbosacral fractional curves in adult (thoraco)lumbar scoliosis: A systematic review

Background

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be used to correct the lumbosacral fractional curve (LsFC) in de novo adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis. Yet, the relative benefits of ALIF and TLIF for LsFC correction remain largely undetermined.

Purpose

To compare the currently available data comparing radiographic correction of the LsFC provided by ALIF and TLIF of LsFC in adult (thoraco)lumbar scoliosis.

Methods

A systematic review was performed on original articles discussing fractional curve correction of lumbosacral spinal deformity (using search criteria: "lumbar" and "fractional curve"). Articles which discussed TLIF or ALIF for LsFC correction were presented and radiographic results for TLIF and ALIF were compared.

Results

Thirty-one articles were returned in the original search criteria, with 7 articles included in the systematic review criteria. All 7 articles presented radiographic results using TLIF for LsFC correction. Three of these articles also discussed results for patients whose LsFC were treated with ALIFs; 2 articles directly compared TLIF and ALIF for LsFC correction. Level III and level IV evidence indicated ALIF as advantageous for reducing the coronal Cobb angle of the LsFC. There were mixed results on relative efficacy of ALIF and TLIF in the LsFC for restoration of adequate global coronal alignment.

Conclusions

Limited level III and IV evidence suggests ALIF as advantageous for reducing the coronal Cobb angle of the LsFC in de novo adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis. Relative efficacy of ALIF and TLIF in the LsFC for restoration of global coronal alignment may be dictated by several factors, including directionality and magnitude of preoperative coronal deformity. Given the limited and low-quality evidence, additional research is warranted to determine the ideal interbody support strategies to address the LsFC in adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis.

Spinopelvic Parameters as Risk Factors of Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Case-Control Study

Background

The effect of spinopelvic alignment on low back pain (LBP) incidence has been studied in many investigations. However, the interrelation between spinopelvic parameters and LBP is poorly understood. In particular, it is unknown whether particular patterns of spinopelvic parameters render nonspecific LBP. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the role of spinopelvic parameters as risk factors of nonspecific LBP.

Methods

In this case-control study, spinopelvic parameters, including lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), and pelvic incidence (PI), were compared between 148 patients with nonspecific LBP and 148 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics of the patients, such as age, gender, occupation, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and body mass index (BMI), were recorded as confounders. Spinopelvic parameters were assessed using radiographic findings in 2 groups. The analysis was done once as univariate (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) and once as multivariate (multivariate logistic regression) analysis.

Results

Univariate analysis showed that female gender, higher BMI, smoking, and blue-collar jobs were associated with a higher risk of nonspecific LBP. LL, SS, and PI, but not PT, were all greater in LPB patients in the univariate analysis regarding the spinopelvic parameters. Multivariate analysis showed female gender (odds ratio adjusted (ORAdj) = 4.26 [95% CI, 2.11-9.58]; P = 0.001) and LL (ORAdj = 1.58; [95% CI, 1.18-3.22]; P = 0.026) were predictable risk factors for Nonspecific LBP.

Conclusion

Spinopelvic parameters, particularly LL, could be considered as risk factors of nonspecific LBP so that a more significant LL might indicate a greater risk of LBP. However, the role of other parameters in this association could not be neglected.

Does the Number of Levels Fused Affect Spinopelvic Parameters and Clinical Outcomes Following Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion for Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVES

To determine how the number of fused intervertebral levels affects radiographic parameters and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing open posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) for low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study on patients who underwent open PLF for low-grade spondylolisthesis at a single institution from 2011 to 2018. Patients were divided into groups based on number of levels fused during their procedure (1, 2, or 3 or more). Preoperative and postoperative spinopelvic radiographic parameters, patient-reported outcomes (Visual Analog Scale [VAS]-back, VAS-leg, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and postoperative complications were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 316 patients eligible (203 one-level, 95 two-level, 18 three or more levels), change in initial postoperative to final pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis was greatest in 2-level fusions (P = .039), while 3 or more level fusions had worse final pelvic tilt measures (P = .021). In addition, multilevel fusions had worse final VAS-back scores (2-level: P = .015; 3 or more levels: P = .011), higher rates of dural tears (2-level: P = .001), reoperation (2-level: P = .039), and discharge to facility (3 or more levels: P = .047) when compared with 1-level fusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in multilevel fusions experienced less improvement in back pain, had more complications, and were more commonly discharged to a facility compared with single-level PLF patients. These findings are important for operative planning, for setting appropriate preoperative expectations, and for risk stratification in patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion for low-grade spondylolisthesis.