TY - JOUR
T1 - Fractional Curve in Adult Spinal Deformity
T2 - Is it a Driver of or a Compensation for Coronal Malalignment?
AU - Plais, Nicolas
AU - Bao, Hongda
AU - Lafage, Renaud
AU - Kim, Han Jo
AU - Gupta, Munish
AU - Smith, Justin S.
AU - Shaffrey, Christopher
AU - Mundis, Gregory
AU - Burton, Douglas
AU - Ames, Christopher
AU - Klineberg, Eric
AU - Bess, Shay
AU - Hostin, Richard A.
AU - Schwab, Frank
AU - Lafage, Virginie
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - Study Design: This was a retrospective review of the multicenter adult spine deformity database. Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the role of the fractional curve (FC) on global coronal malalignment. Summary of Background Data: Despite being very common, the role of the coronal FC as either a driver or compensation for global coronal malalignment is not well documented Materials and Methods: Patients with the following characteristics were extracted from a prospective multicenter database: lumbar/thoracolumbar (TL) major coronal curve >15 degrees, apex at T11-L3, lower end vertebra at L3 or L4, above 45 years old, and FC >5 degrees. In addition to the classic radiographic parameters, baseline analysis included Cobb angle, pelvic obliquity (PO), fractional ratio (fractional Cobb/main Cobb), the sum of PO and FC, as well as the coronal Qiu classification. Curves distribution (TL vs. FC) were compared across the 3 Qui types, and the role of the FC was investigated. Results: A total of 404 patients (63 y old, 83.3% female) were included: 43 patients were classified as type B, 120 as type C, and 241 were coronally balanced (type A). Compared with the balanced patients, type C patients had similar major TL Cobb angles but significantly larger fractional Cobb angles (17.5 vs. 22.3 degrees, P<0.001). By opposition, type B patients had significantly larger major TL Cobb angles (49 vs. 41 degrees, P=0.001) but smaller fractional Cobb angles (P<0.001). PO>5 degrees in the same direction as FC was more common in type B patients (20%) than in type C patients (7.5%), which suggests the preferential role of pelvic compensation. Conclusions: Our findings challenge the idea that FC is only a compensatory curve below a main lumbar or TL curve. In type B patients, FC acts as a compensation mechanism but fails to maintain coronal alignment despite the presence of PO. In type C patients, however, the lumbosacral FC acts as a primary driver of coronal malalignment. Level of Evidence: Level III.
AB - Study Design: This was a retrospective review of the multicenter adult spine deformity database. Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the role of the fractional curve (FC) on global coronal malalignment. Summary of Background Data: Despite being very common, the role of the coronal FC as either a driver or compensation for global coronal malalignment is not well documented Materials and Methods: Patients with the following characteristics were extracted from a prospective multicenter database: lumbar/thoracolumbar (TL) major coronal curve >15 degrees, apex at T11-L3, lower end vertebra at L3 or L4, above 45 years old, and FC >5 degrees. In addition to the classic radiographic parameters, baseline analysis included Cobb angle, pelvic obliquity (PO), fractional ratio (fractional Cobb/main Cobb), the sum of PO and FC, as well as the coronal Qiu classification. Curves distribution (TL vs. FC) were compared across the 3 Qui types, and the role of the FC was investigated. Results: A total of 404 patients (63 y old, 83.3% female) were included: 43 patients were classified as type B, 120 as type C, and 241 were coronally balanced (type A). Compared with the balanced patients, type C patients had similar major TL Cobb angles but significantly larger fractional Cobb angles (17.5 vs. 22.3 degrees, P<0.001). By opposition, type B patients had significantly larger major TL Cobb angles (49 vs. 41 degrees, P=0.001) but smaller fractional Cobb angles (P<0.001). PO>5 degrees in the same direction as FC was more common in type B patients (20%) than in type C patients (7.5%), which suggests the preferential role of pelvic compensation. Conclusions: Our findings challenge the idea that FC is only a compensatory curve below a main lumbar or TL curve. In type B patients, FC acts as a compensation mechanism but fails to maintain coronal alignment despite the presence of PO. In type C patients, however, the lumbosacral FC acts as a primary driver of coronal malalignment. Level of Evidence: Level III.
KW - adult spine deformity
KW - coronal Qiu classification
KW - coronal malalignment
KW - global coronal alignment
KW - pelvic compensation
KW - pelvic obliquity
KW - primary patients
KW - scoliosis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85108119051&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001151
DO - 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001151
M3 - Article
C2 - 38011511
AN - SCOPUS:85108119051
SN - 2380-0186
VL - 34
SP - E276-E281
JO - Clinical spine surgery
JF - Clinical spine surgery
IS - 5
ER -