scholarly journals 166 Is Achieving Optimal Spinopelvic Parameters Necessary to Obtain Substantial Clinical Benefit: Analysis of Patients Who Underwent Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgical or Hybrid Surgery With Open Posterior Instrumentation

Neurosurgery ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (CN_suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 103-104
Author(s):  
Paul Park ◽  
Robert Eastlack ◽  
Kai-Ming G Fu ◽  
Stacie Tran ◽  
Gregory M Mundis ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 833-838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Park ◽  
Kai-Ming Fu ◽  
Robert K. Eastlack ◽  
Stacie Tran ◽  
Gregory M. Mundis ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEIt is now well accepted that spinopelvic parameters are correlated with clinical outcomes in adult spinal deformity (ASD). The purpose of this study was to determine whether obtaining optimal spinopelvic alignment was absolutely necessary to achieve a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or substantial clinical benefit (SCB).METHODSA multicenter retrospective review of patients who underwent less-invasive surgery for ASD was conducted. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years and one of the following: coronal Cobb angle > 20°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 5 cm, pelvic tilt (PT) > 20°, or pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch > 10°. A total of 223 patients who were treated with circumferential minimally invasive surgery or hybrid surgery and had a minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Based on optimal spinopelvic parameters (PI-LL mismatch ± 10° and SVA < 5 cm), patients were divided into aligned (AL) or malaligned (MAL) groups. The primary clinical outcome studied was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score.RESULTSThere were 74 patients in the AL group and 149 patients in the MAL group. Age and body mass index were similar between groups. Although the baseline SVA was similar, PI-LL mismatch (9.9° vs 17.7°, p = 0.002) and PT (19° vs 24.7°, p = 0.001) significantly differed between AL and MAL groups, respectively. As expected postoperatively, the AL and MAL groups differed significantly in PI-LL mismatch (−0.9° vs 13.1°, p < 0.001), PT (14° vs 25.5°, p = 0.001), and SVA (11.8 mm vs 48.3 mm, p < 0.001), respectively. Notably, there was no difference in the proportion of AL or MAL patients in whom an MCID (52.75% vs 61.1%, p > 0.05) or SCB (40.5% vs 46.3%, p > 0.05) was achieved for ODI score, respectively. Similarly, no differences in percentage of patients obtaining an MCID or SCB for visual analog scale back and leg pain score were observed. On multivariate analysis controlling for surgical and preoperative demographic differences, achieving optimal spinopelvic parameters was not associated with achieving an MCID (OR 0.645, 95% CI 0.31–1.33) or an SCB (OR 0.644, 95% CI 0.31–1.35) for ODI score.CONCLUSIONSAchieving optimal spinopelvic parameters was not a predictor for achieving an MCID or SCB. Since spinopelvic parameters are correlated with clinical outcomes, the authors’ findings suggest that the presently accepted optimal spinopelvic parameters may require modification. Other factors, such as improvement in neurological symptoms and/or segmental instability, also likely impacted the clinical outcomes.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (13) ◽  
pp. 169-176
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Evangelista ◽  
James L. Coyle

Esophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of death from cancer worldwide. Esophageal resection is the mainstay treatment for cancers of the esophagus. While curative, surgical resection may result in swallowing difficulties that require intervention from speech-language pathologists (SLPs). Minimally invasive surgical procedures for esophageal resection have aimed to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with more invasive techniques. Both intra-operative and post-operative complications, regardless of the surgical approach, can result in dysphagia. This article will review the epidemiological impact of esophageal cancers, operative complications resulting in dysphagia, and clinical assessment and management of dysphagia pertinent to esophageal resection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document