The Relationship between Sagittal Spinal Alignment and Surgical Results in Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis with Spinal Stenosis

Changes in the curvature have not been reported in degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) when the correction surgery was performed. The purpose of our study was to clarify the influence of the correction surgery of DLS. Twenty-one patients underwent corrective lumbar reconstruction surgery (1998–2003) only at the neurologically affected levels. The spinal curvature was retrospectively evaluated in these 21 patients with DLS using Cobb's methods. The mean preoperative Cobb's angle was 17.7° while the mean postoperative Cobb's angle was 6.1° (p < 0.0001) at 1 month after the surgery and 9.0° at the final follow-up. The correction rate was 65.2% at 1 month after the surgery and 50.2% at the final follow-up. Cobb's angle increased by 2.9°/43.4 months (mean, 0.80°/year) in these procedure. The surgical goals of DLS are the relief of neurological disorders and the cessation of the deterioration of spinal alignment. Strategies for DLS may include complete decompression, or correction of the spinal alignment in elderly patients with poor bone quality. Decompression and correction in the PLIF procedure only at neurologically affected levels may be one of the surgical procedures to challenge DLS.

Download Full-text

Comparison between dynamic stabilization and instrumented fusion in the treatment of spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis

10.21203/rs.2.19711/v1 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Lei Luo ◽

Lang Fang ◽

Qiang Zhou ◽

Chen Zhao ◽

Pei Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Perioperative Complications ◽

Dynamic Stabilization ◽

Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽

Instrumented Fusion ◽

Lumbar Scoliosis ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Posterior Instrumented Fusion

Abstract Background Posterior instrumented fusion is the most widely accepted surgical treatment for spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). However, long fusion can affect daily activities due to lumbar stiffness. Several clinical studies have shown that Dynesys dynamic stabilization in addition to laminectomy could lead to significant improvements in clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization with posterior instrumented fusion for the management of spinal stenosis with DLS. Methods Between August 2010 and Deccember 2015, a total of 46 patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar scoliosis were enrolled in this study. 26 patients (Dynesys group) had fenestration decompression, selective intervertebral fusion and Dynesys stabilizationin. 20 patients (fusion group) underwent posterior instrumented fusion. Clinical outcomes, radiographic data, and perioperative complications were compared between the two groups. The average duration of follow-up for the Dynesys group and fusion group was 38 and 33 months respectively. Results The mean number of fixed segments were 3.3±0.8 in Dynesys group and 4.3±0.8 in fusion group. Lower average values of operative duration and blood loss were observed in the dynamic group than in the fusion group. VAS for back and leg pain improved in both groups of patients. There were significant difference in ODI and LSDI (lumbar stiffness disability index) between Dynesys group and fusion group at the last follow-up. The scoliosis Cobb's angle and lumbar lordosis significantly improved in both groups after surgery, and no significant difference were observed between the groups at the last follow-up (P＞0.05). Dynesys stabilization resulted in significantly higher preservation of motion at the implanted segments. Conclusions This study demonstrated that both Dynesys dynamic stabilization and instrumented fusion can improve clinical outcomes of patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Compared to instrumented fusion, Dynesys stabilizationin have advantages on blood loss, operation time, perioperative complications. In addition, Dynesys stabilization partially preserves the ROM of the stabilized segments that may reduce the limitation on daily activities caused by lumbar stiffness. Dynesys stabilizationin can also correct scoliosis, prevent progression of the curve, and maintain lumbar lordosis in mild to moderate lumbar scoliosis without sagittal imbalance.

Download Full-text

The paravertebral muscle and psoas for the maintenance of global spinal alignment in patient with degenerative lumbar scoliosis

The Spine Journal ◽

10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.001 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 16 (4) ◽

pp. 451-458 ◽

Cited By ~ 38

Author(s):

Mitsuru Yagi ◽

Naobumi Hosogane ◽

Kota Watanabe ◽

Takashi Asazuma ◽

Morio Matsumoto

Keyword(s):

Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽

Spinal Alignment ◽

Paravertebral Muscle ◽

Lumbar Scoliosis

Download Full-text

Can decompression surgery relieve low back pain in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with degenerative lumbar scoliosis?

European Spine Journal ◽

10.1007/s00586-013-2786-5 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 22 (9) ◽

pp. 2010-2014 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Shunji Tsutsui ◽

Ryohei Kagotani ◽

Hiroshi Yamada ◽

Hiroshi Hashizume ◽

Akihito Minamide ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽

Decompression Surgery ◽

Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽

Low Back ◽

Lumbar Scoliosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal

Download Full-text

Decompression and nonfusion dynamic stabilization for spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2014.6.spine13190 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 21 (4) ◽

pp. 585-594 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Soo Eon Lee ◽

Tae-Ahn Jahng ◽

Hyun-Jib Kim

Keyword(s):

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Radiolucent Line ◽

Decompressive Surgery ◽

Neurological Deficits ◽

Spinal Diseases ◽

Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽

Moderate Degree ◽

Lumbar Scoliosis ◽

The Mean

Object Spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) mostly occurs in the elderly population (typically > 65 years old), causing pain in the legs and back, claudication, and spinal deformity. The surgical strategy for DLS is controversial concerning the surgical approach, fusion area, decompression area, correction methods, and ideal angle of curve correction. A nonfusion stabilization system with motion preservation has been recently used for degenerative spinal diseases with favorable outcomes. This study attempted to analyze surgical outcomes after decompression and nonfusion stabilization for spinal stenosis with a mild to moderate degree of DLS. Methods Twenty-eight patients (21 women and 7 men, with a mean age of 65.3 years) with spinal stenosis and DLS who underwent decompressive surgery and nonfusion stabilization with the Dynesys system were included in this study. Medical records and radiological studies were reviewed to access clinical and radiological outcomes and surgery-related complications. Results Fifty-nine segments were decompressed and stabilized without fusion in 28 patients, consisting of 1 segmental stabilization in 8 patients (28.6%, L4–5), 2 segmental stabilizations in 11 patients (39.3%, L3–5), 3 segmental stabilizations in 7 patients (25.0%, L2–5 in 6 patients, L3–S1 in 1 patient), and 4 segmental stabilizations in 2 patients (7.1%, L2–S1 in 1 patient, L1–5 in 1 patient). The mean follow-up period was 30.7 months. Radiologically, the mean lumbar scoliotic angle was 13.7° before surgery, 5.1° at 3 months postoperatively, 3.8° at 12 months postoperatively, 4.2° at 24 months postoperatively, and 3.9° at the last follow-up, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Lumbar lordosis and range of motion were preserved. The score on the visual analog scale for leg and back pain significantly decreased, and the Oswestry Disability Index significantly improved after surgery. There were no newly developed neurological deficits or aggravation of neurological symptoms. A radiolucent line around the pedicle screw was observed in 4 patients (14.2%) with 5 screws (2.8%). Conclusions Adding nonfusion stabilization after decompressive surgery resulted in a safe and effective procedure for elderly patients with lumbar stenosis with a mild to moderate scoliosis angle (< 30°). Statistically significant improvement of the clinical outcome was obtained at the last follow-up evaluation with no progression of the degenerative scoliosis.

Download Full-text

Risk of progression of degenerative lumbar scoliosis

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2011.6.spine10929 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 15 (5) ◽

pp. 558-566 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

Author(s):

Jun-Yeong Seo ◽

Kee-Yong Ha ◽

Tae-Hyok Hwang ◽

Ki-Won Kim ◽

Young-Hoon Kim

Keyword(s):

Vertebral Body ◽

Curve Progression ◽

Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽

Disc Space ◽

Apical Vertebra ◽

Lumbar Scoliosis ◽

The Mean ◽

Cobb Method ◽

The Relationship

Object In this paper the authors' goal was to determine the factors associated with the progression of degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). Methods Twenty-seven patients (3 men and 24 women; mean age 64.9 years) with more than 10° of lumbar scoliosis at baseline were monitored for a mean period of 10 years. The radiological evaluation included measurement of the scoliosis angle using the Cobb method, the direction of the scoliosis, the relationship between the intercrest line and the L-5 vertebra, lateral listhesis, segmental angle, distance from the center of the sacral line to the apical vertebra, degenerative listhesis anteriorly or posteriorly or both, and lordosis angle. In addition, the lateral osteophyte difference, disc index, and severity of osteoporosis were measured. The pain and disability outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) relative to severity of the angle of scoliosis. Results The mean initial and final scoliosis angles were 14° ± 5.4° and 25° ± 8.5°, respectively. The initial disc index at the L-3 vertebra (Spearman ρ = 0.7, p < 0.001), the sum of the segmental wedging angles above and below the L-3 vertebra (ρ = 0.6, p < 0.001), and the initial disc index at the apical vertebra (ρ = 0.6, p < 0.001) were correlated with the last follow-up angle of the scoliosis. By contrast, there was no statistically significant correlation between the initial segmental angles at L2–3 and L3–4 and the final follow-up scoliosis angle (ρ = 0.2, p = 0.67; and ρ = 0.1, p = 0.22; respectively). When the authors separated the patients into 3 groups according to the sum of the segmental angles above and below L-3 (< 5°, 5° to 10°, and > 10°), they found that 3 (42.9%) of 7, 8 (66.7%) of 12, and 6 (75.0%) of 8 patients in the 3 groups showed increases of greater than 10° in scoliosis angle. The mean distance from the center of the sacral line to the apical vertebra was 36.0 ± 9.7 mm, and the distance correlated with the measurement of the last follow-up angle of the scoliosis (ρ = 0.6, p < 0.001). The mean angle of the scoliosis was significantly greater when the intercrest line passed through the L-5 or L4–5 disc space than when the line passed through the L-4 vertebral body (31.4° ± 7.9° vs 21.8° ± 6.7°, p = 0.01). The ODI correlated with the measurement of the angle of the scoliosis (ρ = 0.6, p < 0.001). Age, sex, osteoporosis, the direction of the scoliosis, listhesis of coronal and sagittal planes, the lateral osteophyte difference, and the vertebral body index did not correlate with curve progression. Conclusions The findings of this study demonstrated that the progression of DLS was affected by the relationship between the intercrest line and the L-5 vertebra. When L-5 was deep seated, progression of DLS was found. Asymmetrical change in the disc space above and below the L-3 or apical vertebra may also be an important predictor of curve progression.

Download Full-text

Short Limited Fusion Versus Long Fusion With Deformity Correction for Spinal Stenosis With Balanced De Novo Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis

Spine ◽

10.1097/brs.0000000000002306 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 42 (19) ◽

pp. E1126-E1132 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Chang-Hyun Lee ◽

Chun Kee Chung ◽

Moon Jun Sohn ◽

Chi Heon Kim

Keyword(s):

Spinal Stenosis ◽

De Novo ◽

Deformity Correction ◽

Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽

Lumbar Scoliosis

Download Full-text

Cervical sagittal alignment in patients with dropped head syndrome

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery ◽

10.1177/2309499021990112 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 29 (1) ◽

pp. 230949902199011

Author(s):

Weiqing Qian ◽

Kenji Endo ◽

Takato Aihara ◽

Yasunobu Sawaji ◽

Hidekazu Suzuki ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cervical Spondylosis ◽

Sagittal Alignment ◽

Vertical Axis ◽

Spinal Alignment ◽

Sagittal Vertical Axis ◽

Dropped Head Syndrome ◽

Sagittal Spinal Alignment ◽

Cervical Sagittal Alignment ◽

Lumbar Alignment ◽

The Relationship

Background: Dropped head syndrome (DHS) can be divided into two types, the positive sagittal vertical axis (SVA) type and the negative SVA type. However, the cervical sagittal alignment of DHS including global sagittal spinal alignment and the typical cervical alignment of the types of DHS is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to clarify the character of cervical sagittal alignment of DHS and analyze the relationship between cervical sagittal alignment and global sagittal spinal alignment. Methods: The subjects were 35 DHS patients (10 men, 25 women, mean 71.1 years old). They were divided into two groups: negative DHS (N-DHS group, SVA < 0 mm) and positive DHS group (P-DHS group, SVA ≥ 0 mm). As control, 28 age-matched cervical spondylosis patients (CS, 21 men, 7 women, mean 67.4 years old) were analyzed. The following parameters were measured on lateral global-spine standing radiographs: cervical SVA (C2-C7SVA), O-C2A (O-C2 angle), C2 slope (C2S), C2-7A (C2-7 angle), T1 slope (T1S) and C7SVA. Results: The results of measurements of each of the averaged sagittal alignment parameters were (CS, P-DHS, N-DHS): C2-7SVA(26.2 mm, 47.3 mm, 44.5 mm), O-C2 angle (35.0°, 37.1°, 39.3°), C2S (16.5°, 31.4°, 33.8°), C2-7A (9.3°, 9.9°, −16.6°), T1S (22.9°, 39.7°, 25.7°), C7SVA (35.3 mm, 51.0 mm, −43.1 mm). C2-C7SVA and C2S were significantly larger in both types of DHS compared to CS. Comparing P-DHS with N-DHS, C2-C7A and T1S were significantly smaller in N-DHS. Conclusions: O-C2A did not differ significantly among CS, P-DHS and N-DHS. In DHS patients, C2-7SVA and C2S were significantly larger than those of CS regardless of the type of DHS. The typical cervical sagittal alignment of DHS was different between P-DHS and N-DHS. In P-DHS, C2-7A and T1S were larger than those in N-DHS and the imbalance of thoraco-lumbar alignment should be noted.

Download Full-text