TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes and complications of extension of previous long fusion to the sacro-pelvis
T2 - Is an anterior approach necessary?
AU - Fu, Kai Ming G.
AU - Smith, Justin S.
AU - Burton, Douglas C.
AU - Shaffrey, Christopher I.
AU - Boachie-Adjei, Oheneba
AU - Carlson, Brandon
AU - Schwab, Frank J.
AU - Lafage, Virginie
AU - Hostin, Richard
AU - Bess, Shay
AU - Akbarnia, Behrooz A.
AU - Mundis, Greg
AU - Klineberg, Eric
AU - Gupta, Munish
N1 - Funding Information:
Conflict of interest statement: Study group support provided by Depuy Spine. Justin S. Smith is a consultant for Medtronic, Depuy, and Biomet; received honoraria for teaching from Medtronic, Depuy, Biomet, and Globus; and received research study group support from Depuy. Douglas Burton is a consultant for Depuy, received royalties from Depuy, and received research support from Depuy. Christopher Shaffrey is a consultant for and has a patent with Biomet, received royalties and has a patent with Medtronic, is a consultant for Depuy, and received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense . Oheneba Boachie received grants/research support from Depuy , K2M Inc. , and Osteotec ; is a consultant for Depuy, K2M Inc., Osteotech, and Trans1 Inc.; is on the speakers' bureau for K2M Inc. and Trans1 Inc.; and received other financial support from Depuy, K2M Inc., and Trans1 Inc. Shay Bess received grant/ research support from Depuy , is a consultant for Depuy, is on the advisory board/panel for Allosource and the speaker's bureau for Depuy, and received other financial or material support from Pioneer Spine. Behrooz Akbarnia is a stockholder of Nuvasive; a consultant for Nuvasive, K2M, and Depuy Spine; and received grants from Nuvasive , K2M , and Depuy Spine . Greg Mundis is a consultant for Nuvasive and K2M; has received honorarium from Nuvasive and K2M; and received grants from Depuy Spine (research support), Nuvasive , K2M , and OREF . Eric Klineberg is a consultant for Synthes and Alphatec; has speaking and/or teaching arrangements with Synthes, Depuy, and Stryker; participates in trips/travel for Depuy, Stryker, and Nuvasive; and received grants from AOSpine and fellowship support from OREF and Synthes. Munish Gupta received grant/research support from Depuy ; is a consultant for Depuy, Osteotech, and Lanx; and is on the advisory board/panel of Depuy and the speaker's bureau of Depuy, Osteotech, Trans1, and Synthes.
PY - 2013/1
Y1 - 2013/1
N2 - Background: Patients with previous multilevel spinal fusion may require extension of the fusion to the sacro-pelvis. Our objective was to evaluate the outcomes and complications of these patients, stratified based on whether the revision was performed using a posterior-only spinal fusion (PSF) or combined anterior-posterior spinal fusion (APSF). Methods: A retrospective, multicenter evaluation of adults (>18 years old) with a history of prior spinal fusion for scoliosis (≥4 levels) terminating in the distal lumbar spine requiring extension of fusion to the sacro-pelvis (including iliac fixation in all cases), with minimum 2-year follow-up, was performed. Patients were stratified based on approach (APSF vs. PSF) and inclusion of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO). The PSF group included patients treated with an anterior interbody fusion done through a posterior approach, whereas patients in the APSF group all had both anterior and posterior surgical approaches. Clinical outcomes were based on the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22) questionnaire. Results: Between 1995 and 2006, 45 patients (mean age = 49 years) met inclusion criteria, with a mean follow-up of 41.9 months (range 24 to 135 months). Demographic, preoperative, operative, and postoperative radiographic, SRS-22, and follow-up results were similar between APSF (n = 30) and PSF (n = 15) groups. The APSF group had more complications (13 of 30 vs. 3 of 15) and a greater number of pseudarthrosis (4 of 30 vs. 0 of 15) than the PSF group; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Patients treated with a PSO (n = 13) had greater sagittal vertical axis correction (7.7 cm vs. 2.2 cm; P =.04) compared with patients not treated with a PSO (n = 32). There were no differences in complication rates or follow-up SRS-22 scores based on whether a PSO was performed (P >.05). Conclusions: Among adults with previously treated scoliosis requiring extension to the sacro-pelvis, PSF produced radiographic fusion and clinical outcomes equivalent to APSF, whereas complication rates may be lower. PSO resulted in greater sagittal plane correction, without an increase in overall complication rates.
AB - Background: Patients with previous multilevel spinal fusion may require extension of the fusion to the sacro-pelvis. Our objective was to evaluate the outcomes and complications of these patients, stratified based on whether the revision was performed using a posterior-only spinal fusion (PSF) or combined anterior-posterior spinal fusion (APSF). Methods: A retrospective, multicenter evaluation of adults (>18 years old) with a history of prior spinal fusion for scoliosis (≥4 levels) terminating in the distal lumbar spine requiring extension of fusion to the sacro-pelvis (including iliac fixation in all cases), with minimum 2-year follow-up, was performed. Patients were stratified based on approach (APSF vs. PSF) and inclusion of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO). The PSF group included patients treated with an anterior interbody fusion done through a posterior approach, whereas patients in the APSF group all had both anterior and posterior surgical approaches. Clinical outcomes were based on the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22) questionnaire. Results: Between 1995 and 2006, 45 patients (mean age = 49 years) met inclusion criteria, with a mean follow-up of 41.9 months (range 24 to 135 months). Demographic, preoperative, operative, and postoperative radiographic, SRS-22, and follow-up results were similar between APSF (n = 30) and PSF (n = 15) groups. The APSF group had more complications (13 of 30 vs. 3 of 15) and a greater number of pseudarthrosis (4 of 30 vs. 0 of 15) than the PSF group; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Patients treated with a PSO (n = 13) had greater sagittal vertical axis correction (7.7 cm vs. 2.2 cm; P =.04) compared with patients not treated with a PSO (n = 32). There were no differences in complication rates or follow-up SRS-22 scores based on whether a PSO was performed (P >.05). Conclusions: Among adults with previously treated scoliosis requiring extension to the sacro-pelvis, PSF produced radiographic fusion and clinical outcomes equivalent to APSF, whereas complication rates may be lower. PSO resulted in greater sagittal plane correction, without an increase in overall complication rates.
KW - Complications
KW - Deformity
KW - Iliac screws
KW - Pedicle subtraction osteotomy
KW - Revision
KW - Sacro-pelvic instrumentation
KW - Spine
KW - Surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873714745&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.wneu.2012.06.016
DO - 10.1016/j.wneu.2012.06.016
M3 - Review article
C2 - 22722041
AN - SCOPUS:84873714745
SN - 1878-8750
VL - 79
SP - 177
EP - 181
JO - World neurosurgery
JF - World neurosurgery
IS - 1
ER -