scholarly journals Correction to: Relationship between sagittal balance and adjacent segment disease in surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: meta‑analysis and implications for choice of fusion technique

Author(s):  
Kevin Phan ◽  
Alexander Nazareth ◽  
Awais K. Hussain ◽  
Adam A. Dmytriw ◽  
Mithun Nambiar ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fei Jia ◽  
Guodong Wang ◽  
Xiaoyang Liu ◽  
Tao Li ◽  
Jianmin Sun

Abstract Purpose Choosing an optimal distal fusion level for adult spinal deformity (ASD) is still controversial. To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of distal fusion to L5 versus the sacrum in ASD, we conducted a meta-analysis. Methods Relevant studies on long fusion terminating at L5 or the sacrum in ASD were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. Then, studies were manually selected for inclusion based on predefined criteria. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3. Results Eleven retrospective studies with 1211 patients were included in meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in overall complication rate (95% CI 0.60 to 1.30) and revision rate (95% CI 0.59 to 1.99) between fusion to L5 group (L group) and fusion to the sacrum group (S group). Significant lower rate of pseudarthrosis and implant-related complications (95% CI 0.29 to 0.64) as well as proximal adjacent segment disease (95% CI 0.35 to 0.92) was found in L group. Patients in S group obtained a better correction of lumbar lordosis (95% CI − 7.85 to − 0.38) and less loss of sagittal balance (95% CI − 1.80 to − 0.50). Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggested that long fusion terminating at L5 or the sacrum was similar in scoliosis correction, overall complication rate, revision rate, and improvement in pain and disability. However, fusion to L5 had advantages in lower rate of pseudarthrosis, implant-related complications, and proximal adjacent segment disease, while fusion to the sacrum had advantages in the restoration of lumbar lordosis, maintenance of sagittal balance, and absence of distal adjacent segment disease. Graphic abstract These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. S165-S166
Author(s):  
Mohamed K. Mesregah ◽  
Brandon C. Yoshida ◽  
Aidin Abedi ◽  
Patrick C. Hsieh ◽  
Jeffrey C. Wang ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Nachanakian ◽  
Antonios El Helou ◽  
Moussa Alaywan

Introduction. Posterior Dynamic stabilization using the interspinous spacer device is a known to be used as an alternative to rigid fusion in neurogenic claudication patients in the absence of macro instability. Actually, it plays an important in the management of adjacent segment disease in previously fused lumbar spine.Materials and Method. We report our experience with posterior dynamic stabilization using an interspinous spacer. 134 cases performed in our institution between September 2008 and August 2012 with different lumbar spine pathologies. The ages of our patients were between 40 and 72 years, with a mean age of 57 years. After almost 4 years of follow up in our patient and comparing their outcome to our previous serious we found that in some case the interspinous distracter has an important role not only in the treatment of adjacent segment disease but also in its prevention.Results and Discussion. Clinical improvement was noted in ISD-treated patients, with high satisfaction rate. At first, radicular pain improves with more than 3/10 reduction of the mean score on visual analog scale (VAS). In addition, disability score as well as disc height and lordotic angle showed major improvement at 3 to 6 months post operatively. And, no adjacent segment disease was reported in the patient operated with interspinous spacer.Conclusion. The interspinous spacer is safe and efficient modality to be used not only as a treatment of adjacent segment disease but also as a preventive measure in patients necessitating rigid fusion.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-93
Author(s):  
Gunjan Jindal ◽  
Abhishek Aggarwal ◽  
Rupinder Singh ◽  
Pratik Mittal ◽  
Manu Solanki ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document