scholarly journals Metal failure and nonunion at L5-S1 after long instrumented fusion distal to pelvis for adult spinal deformity: Anterior versus transforaminal interbody fusion

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 230949902110542
Author(s):  
Se-Jun Park ◽  
Jin-Sung Park ◽  
Chong-Suh Lee ◽  
Keun-Ho Lee
Keyword(s):  
Failure Rate ◽  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Instrumented Fusion ◽  
Metal Failure

Purpose Pseudoarthrosis and metal failure at L5-S1 following long fusion surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD) remain major issues. Few studies report on which anterior column support technique is better in terms of achieving fusion and avoiding metal failures. Our study aimed to evaluate the fusion status and metal failure rate at L5-S1 after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods The study population included patients aged >50 years who underwent surgery for ASD. Anterior column supports at L5-S1 using ALIF and TLIF were compared with ≥ 2-year follow-up. Fusion status on 2-year computed tomography (CT) scan, metal failure, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were evaluated. Results 98 patients were included in this study (53 ALIF group and 45 TLIF group). We achieved solid fusion on 2-year CT scans in 88.9% and 69.8% patients in the TLIF and ALIF group, respectively. Metal failure developed in nine (17.0%) and six (13.3%) patients in the ALIF and TLIF group, respectively. The most common failure type was unilateral L5-S1 rod fracture (7 and five patients in the ALIF and TLIF group, respectively). Only one patient with bilateral rod fractures in the ALIF group required revision surgery. There were no differences in the VAS and ODI scores at the last follow-up. Conclusions TLIF showed a better fusion rate than ALIF at L5-S1 after long instrumented fusion for ASD. However, the capacity to restore sagittal parameters was greater in the ALIF group. There were no differences between the groups regarding metal failure rate, revision surgery, or clinical outcomes.

Strategies for prevention of rod fracture in adult spinal deformity: cobalt chrome rod, accessory rod technique, and lateral lumbar interbody fusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ki Young Lee ◽  
Jung-Hee Lee ◽  
Kyung-Chung Kang ◽  
Sang-Kyu Im ◽  
Hae Seong Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Patient Factors ◽  
Rod Fracture ◽  
Cobalt Chrome

OBJECTIVERestoring the proper sagittal alignment in adult spinal deformity (ASD) can improve radiological and clinical outcomes, but pseudarthrosis including rod fracture (RF) is a common problematic complication. The purpose of this study was to analyze the methods for reducing the incidence of RF in deformity correction of ASD.METHODSThe authors retrospectively selected 178 consecutive patients (mean age 70.8 years) with lumbar degenerative kyphosis (LDK) who underwent deformity correction with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were classified into the non-RF group (n = 131) and the RF group (n = 47). For predicting the crucial factors of RF, patient factors, radiographic parameters, and surgical factors were analyzed.RESULTSThe overall incidence of RF was 26% (47/178 cases), occurring in 42% (42/100 cases) of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO), 7% (5/67 cases) of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior column osteotomy, 18% (23/129 cases) of cobalt chrome rods, 49% (24/49 cases) of titanium alloy rods, 6% (2/36 cases) placed with the accessory rod technique, and 32% (45/142 cases) placed with the 2-rod technique. There were no significant differences in the incidence of RF regarding patient factors between two groups. While both groups showed severe sagittal imbalance before operation, lumbar lordosis (LL) was more kyphotic and pelvic incidence (PI) minus LL (PI-LL) mismatch was greater in the RF group (p < 0.05). Postoperatively, while LL and PI-LL did not show significant differences between the two groups, LL and sagittal vertical axis correction were greater in the RF group (p < 0.05). Nonetheless, at the last follow-up, the two groups did not show significant differences in radiographic parameters except thoracolumbar junctional angles. As for surgical factors, use of the cobalt chrome rod and the accessory rod technique was significantly greater in the non-RF group (p < 0.05). As for the correction method, PSO was associated with more RFs than the other correction methods, including LLIF (p < 0.05). By logistic regression analysis, PSO, preoperative PI-LL mismatch, and the accessory rod technique were crucial factors for RF.CONCLUSIONSGreater preoperative sagittal spinopelvic malalignment including preoperative PI-LL mismatch was the crucial risk factor for RF in LDK patients 65 years or older. For restoring and maintaining sagittal alignment, use of the cobalt chrome rod, accessory rod technique, or LLIF was shown to be effective for reducing RF in ASD surgery.

scholarly journals Efficacy and radiographic analysis of oblique lumbar interbody fusion in treating adult spinal deformity

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0257316
Author(s):  
Dae-Jean Jo ◽  
Eun-Min Seo
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spinal Fixation ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Radiographic Parameters ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is usually rigid and requires a combined anterior–posterior approach for deformity correction. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) allows direct access to the disc space and placement of a large interbody graft. A larger interbody graft facilitates correction of ASD. However, an anterior approach carries significant risks. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) through a minimally invasive approach has recently been used for ASD. The present study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) in the treatment of ASD. We performed a retrospective study utilizing the data of 74 patients with ASD. The inclusion criteria were lumbar coronal Cobb angle > 20°, pelvic incidence (PI)–lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch > 10°, and minimum follow–up of 2 years. Patients were divided into two groups: ALIF combined with posterior spinal fixation (ALIF+PSF) (n = 38) and OLIF combined with posterior spinal fixation (OLIF+PSF) (n = 36). The perioperative spinal deformity radiographic parameters, complications, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes were assessed and compared between the two groups. The preoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA), LL, PI–LL mismatch, and lumbar Cobb angles were similar between the two groups. Patients in the OLIF+PSF group had a slightly higher mean number of interbody fusion levels than those in the ALIF+PSF group. At the final follow–up, all radiographic parameters and HRQoL scores were similar between the two groups. However, the rates of perioperative complications were higher in the ALIF+PSF than OLIF+PSF group. The ALIF+PSF and OLIF+PSF groups showed similar radiographic and HRQoL outcomes. These observations suggest that OLIF is a safe and reliable surgical treatment option for ASD.

scholarly journals Surgical Outcomes of Multilevel Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Correction of Adult Spinal Deformity: A Comparative Clinical Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 421-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masayoshi Iwamae ◽  
Akira Matsumura ◽  
Takashi Namikawa ◽  
Minori Kato ◽  
Yusuke Hori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
The Mean

Study Design: A retrospective case control study.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) and multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD) and to evaluate the sagittal plane correction by combining LIF with posterior-column osteotomy (PCO).Overview of Literature: The surgical outcomes between multilevel LIF and multilevel PLIF in ASD patients remain unclear.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 31 ASD patients who underwent multilevel LIF combined with PCO (LIF group, n=14) or multilevel PLIF (PLIF group, n=17) and with a minimum 2-year follow-up. In the comparison between LIF and PLIF groups, their mean age at surgery was 69.4 vs. 61.8 years while the mean follow-up period was 29.2 vs. 59.3 months. We evaluated the transition of pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis (PI–LL) and disc angle (DA) in the LIF group, in fulcrum backward bending (FBB), after LIF and after posterior spinal fusion (PSF) with PCO. The spinopelvic radiographic parameters were compared between LIF and PLIF groups.Results: Compared with the PLIF group, the LIF group had less blood loss and comparable surgical outcomes with respect to radiographic data, health-related quality of life scores and surgical time. In the LIF group, the mean DA and PI–LL were unchanged after LIF (DA, 5.8°; PI–LL, 15°) compared with the values using FBB (DA, 4.3°; PI–LL, 15°) and improved significantly after PSF with PCO (DA, 8.1°; PI–LL, 0°).Conclusions: In the surgical treatment of ASD, multilevel LIF is less invasive than multilevel PLIF and combination of LIF and PCO would be necessary for optimal sagittal correction in patients with rigid deformity.

scholarly journals Does Anterior Column Realignment Result in Greater Morbidity than Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Alone When Treating Adult Spinal Deformity?

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam S Kanter ◽  
Robert Eastlack ◽  
Juan S Uribe ◽  
Richard G Fessler ◽  
Khoi D Than ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Spinopelvic Parameters ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Abstract INTRODUCTION Anterior column realignment (ACR) can be utilized for correction of adult spinal deformity (ASD), but the additional benefit over lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) alone is unclear. METHODS Inclusion criteria were age = 18 yr, and one of the following: coronal cobb > 20°, SVA > 5 cm, PT > 20°, PI-LL > 10°. Patients were treated with circumferential MIS (cMIS) surgery or hybrid MIS surgery and had 1-year minimum follow-up. HRQOL (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog score (VAS), SRS-22) and spinopelvic parameters were captured. RESULTS A total of 127 patients met inclusion criteria, 101 underwent LLIF and 26 had ACR. Average age and BMI were 66.3/27.7 and 67.8/27.4 (P = .654/0.957). The groups had similar rates of prior spine surgery (48.5% vs 57.7%; P = .403), cMIS (58.7% vs 73.1%; P = .222), posterior osteotomies (43.6% vs 34.6%; P = .409), levels instrumented (7.8 vs 8; P = .895), and interbody fusion levels (3.4 vs 3.6; P = .478). Preop (PT: 23.6/26.3; P = .373, SVA: 77.6/54.6 mm; P = .151, PI-LL: 17.3/20; P = .692) and postop spinopelvic parameters were similar between groups, except for postop SVA which was higher in the LLIF group (40 mm vs 13 mm; P = .028). 1 yr PI-LL (3.8 vs 5.8; P = .555), PT (20.6 vs 22.9; P = .536), and SVA were normalized in both groups. Preop and postop ODI, VAS, and SRS -22 scores were similar between groups. Complication rates between groups were similar as well (57.4% LLIF vs 57.7% ACR; P = .98), including neurologic (16.8% vs 15.4%; P = .859) and vascular (0% for both groups) injuries. CONCLUSION Use of ACR via lateral approach for correction of adult spinal deformity results in no increase in neurologic, vascular, or other overall complications rates, when compared to using LLIF alone. Optimization of spinopelvic parameters was achieved regardless of the technique employed. Segmental radiographic changes were not specifically evaluated, but regional and global parameters were not differentially impacted when comparing ACR and LLIF impact.

The minimally invasive interbody selection algorithm for spinal deformity

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Ibrahim Hussain ◽  
Christopher I. Shaffrey ◽  
Robert K. Eastlack ◽  
Gregory M. Mundis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Selection Algorithm ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Indirect Decompression ◽  
Segmental Lordosis

OBJECTIVE Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for spinal deformity uses interbody techniques for correction, indirect decompression, and arthrodesis. Selection criteria for choosing a particular interbody approach are lacking. The authors created the minimally invasive interbody selection algorithm (MIISA) to provide a framework for rational decision-making in MIS for deformity. METHODS A retrospective data set of circumferential MIS (cMIS) for adult spinal deformity (ASD) collected over a 5-year period was analyzed by level in the lumbar spine to identify surgeon preferences and evaluate segmental lordosis outcomes. These data were used to inform a Delphi session of minimally invasive deformity surgeons from which the algorithm was created. The algorithm leads to 1 of 4 interbody approaches: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), anterior column release (ACR), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Preoperative and 2-year postoperative radiographic parameters and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS Eleven surgeons completed 100 cMISs for ASD with 338 interbody devices, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The type of interbody approach used at each level from L1 to S1 was recorded. The MIISA was then created with substantial agreement. The surgeons generally preferred LLIF for L1–2 (91.7%), L2–3 (85.2%), and L3–4 (80.7%). ACR was most commonly performed at L3–4 (8.4%) and L2–3 (6.2%). At L4–5, LLIF (69.5%), TLIF (15.9%), and ALIF (9.8%) were most commonly utilized. TLIF and ALIF were the most selected approaches at L5–S1 (61.4% and 38.6%, respectively). Segmental lordosis at each level varied based on the approach, with greater increases reported using ALIF, especially at L4–5 (9.2°) and L5–S1 (5.3°). A substantial increase in lordosis was achieved with ACR at L2–3 (10.9°) and L3–4 (10.4°). Lateral interbody arthrodesis without the use of an ACR did not generally result in significant lordosis restoration. There were statistically significant improvements in lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence–LL mismatch, coronal Cobb angle, and Oswestry Disability Index at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The use of the MIISA provides consistent guidance for surgeons who plan to perform MIS for deformity. For L1–4, the surgeons preferred lateral approaches to TLIF and reserved ACR for patients who needed the greatest increase in segmental lordosis. For L4–5, the surgeons’ order of preference was LLIF, TLIF, and ALIF, but TLIF failed to demonstrate any significant lordosis restoration. At L5–S1, the surgical team typically preferred an ALIF when segmental lordosis was desired and preferred a TLIF if preoperative segmental lordosis was adequate.

Preliminary report on the flexible rod technique for prevention of proximal junctional kyphosis following long-segment fusion to the sacrum in adult spinal deformity

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 703-710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ki Young Lee ◽  
Jung-Hee Lee ◽  
Kyung-Chung Kang ◽  
Won-Ju Shin ◽  
Sang Kyu Im ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Gradual Transition ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Proximal Junctional Kyphosis ◽  
Hybrid Techniques ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Junctional Kyphosis

OBJECTIVEThe incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) after long-segment fixation in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) has been reported to range from 17% to 61.7%. Recent studies have reported using “hybrid” techniques in which semirigid fixation is introduced between the fused and flexible segments at the proximal level to allow a more gradual transition. The authors used these hybrid techniques in a clinical setting and analyzed PJK to evaluate the usefulness of the flexible rod (FR) technique.METHODSThe authors retrospectively selected 77 patients with lumbar degenerative kyphosis (LDK) who underwent sagittal correction and long-segment fixation and had follow-up for > 1 year. An FR was used in 30 of the 77 patients. PJK development and spinal sagittal changes were analyzed in the FR and non-FR groups, and the predictive factors of PJK between a PJK group and a non-PJK group were compared.RESULTSThe patient population comprised 77 patients (75 females and 2 males) with a mean (± SD) follow-up of 32.0 ± 12.7 months (36.7 ± 9.8 months in the non-FR group and 16.8 ± 4.7 months in the FR group) and mean (± SD) age of 71.7 ± 5.1 years. Sagittal balance was well maintained at final follow-up (10.5 and 1.5 mm) in the non-FR and FR groups, respectively. Thoracic kyphosis (TK) and lumbar lordosis (LL) were improved in both groups, without significant differences between the two (p > 0.05). PJK occurred in 28 cases (36.4%) in total, 3 (10%) in the FR and 25 (53.2%) in the non-FR group (p < 0.001). Postoperatively, PJK was observed at an average of 8.9 months in the non-FR group and 1 month in the FR group. No significant differences in the incidence of PJK regarding patient factors or radiological parameters were found between the PJK group and non-PJK group (p > 0.05). However, FR (vs non-FR) and interbody fusion except L5–S1 using oblique lumbar interbody fusion (vs non–oblique lumbar interbody fusion), demonstrated a significantly lower PJK prevalence (p < 0.001 and p = 0.044) among the surgical factors.CONCLUSIONSPJK was reduced after surgical treatment with the FR in the patients with LDK. Solid long-segment fixation and the use of the FR may become another surgical option for spine surgeons who plan and make decisions regarding spine reconstruction surgery for patients with ASD.

The impact of increasing interbody fusion levels at the fractional curve on lordosis, curve correction, and complications in adult patients with scoliosis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Dominic Amara ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Shane Burch ◽  
Vedat Deviren ◽  
Christopher P. Ames ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pelvic Incidence ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Curve Correction ◽  
Surgery Rates

OBJECTIVERadiculopathy from the fractional curve, usually from L3 to S1, can create severe disability. However, treatment methods of the curve vary. The authors evaluated the effect of adding more levels of interbody fusion during treatment of the fractional curve.METHODSA single-institution retrospective review of adult patients treated for scoliosis between 2006 and 2016 was performed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: fractional curves from L3 to S1 > 10°, ipsilateral radicular symptoms concordant on the fractional curve concavity side, patients who underwent at least 1 interbody fusion at the level of the fractional curve, and a minimum 1-year follow-up. Primary outcomes included changes in fractional curve correction, lumbar lordosis change, pelvic incidence − lumbar lordosis mismatch change, scoliosis major curve correction, and rates of revision surgery and postoperative complications. Secondary analysis compared the same outcomes among patients undergoing posterior, anterior, and lateral approaches for their interbody fusion.RESULTSA total of 78 patients were included. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, prior surgery, fractional curve degree, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, pelvic incidence − lumbar lordosis mismatch, sagittal vertical axis, coronal balance, scoliotic curve magnitude, proportion of patients undergoing an osteotomy, or average number of levels fused among the groups. The mean follow-up was 35.8 months (range 12–150 months). Patients undergoing more levels of interbody fusion had more fractional curve correction (7.4° vs 12.3° vs 12.1° for 1, 2, and 3 levels; p = 0.009); greater increase in lumbar lordosis (−1.8° vs 6.2° vs 13.7°, p = 0.003); and more scoliosis major curve correction (13.0° vs 13.7° vs 24.4°, p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences among the groups with regard to postoperative complications (overall rate 47.4%, p = 0.85) or need for revision surgery (overall rate 30.7%, p = 0.25). In the secondary analysis, patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) had a greater increase in lumbar lordosis (9.1° vs −0.87° for ALIF vs transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF], p = 0.028), but also higher revision surgery rates unrelated to adjacent-segment pathology (25% vs 4.3%, p = 0.046). Higher ALIF revision surgery rates were driven by rod fracture in the majority (55%) of cases.CONCLUSIONSMore levels of interbody fusion resulted in increased lordosis, scoliosis curve correction, and fractional curve correction. However, additional levels of interbody fusion up to 3 levels did not result in more postoperative complications or morbidity. ALIF resulted in a greater lumbar lordosis increase than TLIF, but ALIF had higher revision surgery rates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document