TY - JOUR
T1 - Lumbar Lordosis Redistribution and Segmental Correction in Adult Spinal Deformity
T2 - Does it Matter?
AU - International Spine Study Group (ISSG)
AU - Diebo, Bassel G.
AU - Balmaceno-Criss, Mariah
AU - Lafage, Renaud
AU - Daher, Mohammad
AU - Singh, Manjot
AU - Hamilton, D. Kojo
AU - Smith, Justin S.
AU - Eastlack, Robert K.
AU - Fessler, Richard
AU - Gum, Jeffrey L.
AU - Gupta, Munish C.
AU - Hostin, Richard
AU - Kebaish, Khaled M.
AU - Lewis, Stephen
AU - Line, Breton G.
AU - Nunley, Pierce D.
AU - Mundis, Gregory M.
AU - Passias, Peter G.
AU - Protopsaltis, Themistocles S.
AU - Turner, Jay
AU - Buell, Thomas
AU - Scheer, Justin K.
AU - Mullin, Jeffery
AU - Soroceanu, Alex
AU - Ames, Christopher P.
AU - Bess, Shay
AU - Shaffrey, Christopher I.
AU - Lenke, Lawrence G.
AU - Schwab, Frank J.
AU - Lafage, Virginie
AU - Burton, Douglas C.
AU - Daniels, Alan H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/9/1
Y1 - 2024/9/1
N2 - Study Design. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Objective. Evaluate the impact of correcting normative segmental lordosis values on postoperative outcomes. Background. Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remain unclear. Patients and Methods. Patients were grouped based on offset to normative segmental lordosis values, extracted from recent publications. Matched patients were within 10% of the cohort's mean offset, less than or over 10% were undercorrected and overcorrected. Surgical technique, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and two years. Results. In total, 510 patients with a mean age of 64.6, a mean Charlson comorbidity index 2.08, and a mean follow-up of 25 months. L4-5 was least likely to be matched (19.1%), while L4-S1 was the most likely (24.3%). More patients were overcorrected at proximal levels (T10-L2; undercorrected, U: 32.2% vs. matched, M: 21.7% vs. overcorrected, O: 46.1%) and undercorrected at distal levels (L4-S1: U: 39.0% vs. M: 24.3% vs. O: 36.8%). Postoperative Oswestry disability index was comparable across correction groups at all spinal levels except at L4-S1 and T10-L2/L4-S1, where overcorrected patients and matched were better than undercorrected (U: 32.1 vs. M: 25.4 vs. O: 26.5, P=0.005; U: 36.2 vs. M: 24.2 vs. O: 26.8, P=0.001; respectively). Patients overcorrected at T10-L2 experienced higher rates of proximal junctional failure (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P<0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebrae (U: -9.2±9.4° vs. M: -9.6±9.1° vs. O: -12.2±10.0°, P<0.001), whereas undercorrection at these levels led to higher rates of revision for implant failure (U: 14.2% vs. M: 7.3% vs. O: 6.4%, P=0.025). Conclusions. Patients undergoing fusion for adult spinal deformity suffer higher rates of proximal junctional failure with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis.
AB - Study Design. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Objective. Evaluate the impact of correcting normative segmental lordosis values on postoperative outcomes. Background. Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remain unclear. Patients and Methods. Patients were grouped based on offset to normative segmental lordosis values, extracted from recent publications. Matched patients were within 10% of the cohort's mean offset, less than or over 10% were undercorrected and overcorrected. Surgical technique, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and two years. Results. In total, 510 patients with a mean age of 64.6, a mean Charlson comorbidity index 2.08, and a mean follow-up of 25 months. L4-5 was least likely to be matched (19.1%), while L4-S1 was the most likely (24.3%). More patients were overcorrected at proximal levels (T10-L2; undercorrected, U: 32.2% vs. matched, M: 21.7% vs. overcorrected, O: 46.1%) and undercorrected at distal levels (L4-S1: U: 39.0% vs. M: 24.3% vs. O: 36.8%). Postoperative Oswestry disability index was comparable across correction groups at all spinal levels except at L4-S1 and T10-L2/L4-S1, where overcorrected patients and matched were better than undercorrected (U: 32.1 vs. M: 25.4 vs. O: 26.5, P=0.005; U: 36.2 vs. M: 24.2 vs. O: 26.8, P=0.001; respectively). Patients overcorrected at T10-L2 experienced higher rates of proximal junctional failure (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P<0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebrae (U: -9.2±9.4° vs. M: -9.6±9.1° vs. O: -12.2±10.0°, P<0.001), whereas undercorrection at these levels led to higher rates of revision for implant failure (U: 14.2% vs. M: 7.3% vs. O: 6.4%, P=0.025). Conclusions. Patients undergoing fusion for adult spinal deformity suffer higher rates of proximal junctional failure with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis.
KW - adult spinal deformity
KW - caudal lordosis
KW - correction
KW - implant failure
KW - lumbar redistribution
KW - patient-reported outcomes
KW - proximal junctional kyphosis
KW - sagittal alignment
KW - segmental lordosis
KW - surgical outcomes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85191721409&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004930
DO - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004930
M3 - Article
C2 - 38270393
AN - SCOPUS:85191721409
SN - 0362-2436
VL - 49
SP - 1187
EP - 1194
JO - Spine
JF - Spine
IS - 17
ER -