Health insurance policy on surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity

Background: Recent burgeoning research on adult spinal deformity (ASD) has unveiled the benefits of surgical treatment and how to gain the benefits although these have only been around for 10 years.Current Concepts: During the last decade, the significance of pelvic incidence in the global spinal sagittal alignment and introductions of the Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab classification for ASD have been the guidelines of surgical treatment for ASD and the milestones for promising surgical results. However, one of the unsolved problems for the surgical treatment of ASD is the proximal junctional kyphosis, for which multifactorial causative factors have been suggested. Recent studies have focused on dynamic natures in patients with ASD during daily activities, which might be a clue for both prevention of proximal junctional kyphosis and a better level of surgical results. Even though a recent remarkable advancement for surgical treatment for ASD is present, the national guideline for reimbursement is still following the surgical indication for lumbar degenerative kyphosis published in 1988.Discussion and Conclusion: A significant gap exists between the national reimbursement guideline and generally held surgical indication for ASD surgery. Consequently, this huge gap raises trouble in both patients and surgeons. The patients with ASD cannot take an appropriate surgery for ASD, while the spine surgeons experience unreasonable adjustment of the cost by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service.

Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy Approach for Tumor Excision at Conus Medullaris or Cauda Equina Level Results in Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes Without Affecting Global Spinal Sagittal Alignment

Study design Retrospective comparative study. Objectives The present study investigated radiographical changes in global spinal sagittal alignment (GSSA) and clinical outcomes following tumor resection using spinous process-splitting laminectomy (SPSL) approach without fixation in patients with conus medullaris (CM) or cauda equina (CE) tumor. Methods Forty-one patients with CM or CE tumor (19 males, 22 females, mean age at surgery of 52.9 ± 13.0 years) were included in this study. The variations of outcome variables were analyzed in various GSSA profiles using radiographic outcomes. The clinical outcomes were assessed using Japan Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ). Results In all cases, the various GSSA parameters (sagittal vertical axis, C2–7 lordosis, T1 slope, thoracic kyphosis, T10–L2 kyphosis, lumbar lordosis [LL; upper, middle, and lower], sacral slope, pelvic incidence, and pelvic tilt) did not significantly change in the 2-years postoperative period. Moreover, age at surgery, the number of resected laminae, preoperative T12–L2 kyphosis, or LL did not affect the postoperative changes in T12–L2 kyphosis or LL, and had no statistically significant correlation among them. The scores of each postoperative JOA domain and the Visual Analogue Scale included in the JOABPEQ were significantly improved. There was no statistical significant group difference in each sagittal profile or clinical outcomes between CM and CE groups postoperatively. Conclusions Tumor resection using SPSL approach did not affected the various GSSA parameters examined and resulted in satisfactory clinical outcomes, indicating that SPSL approach is a suitable surgical technique for patients with CM or CE tumor.

Effects of the difference between lumbar lordosis in the supine and standing positions on the clinical outcomes of decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVE The authors sought to evaluate the relationship between the difference in lumbar lordosis (DiLL) in the preoperative supine and standing positions and spinal sagittal alignment in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to determine whether this difference affects the clinical outcome of laminectomy. METHODS Sixty patients who underwent single-level unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression of LSS were evaluated. Spinopelvic parameters in the supine and standing positions were measured preoperatively and at 3 months and 2 years postoperatively. DiLL between the supine and standing positions was determined as follows: DiLL = supine LL − standing LL. On the basis of this determination patients were then categorized into DiLL(+) and DiLL(−) groups. The relationship between DiLL and preoperative spinopelvic parameters was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. In addition, clinical outcomes such as visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores between the two groups were measured, and their relationship to DiLL was evaluated using two-group comparison and multivariate analysis. RESULTS There were 31 patients in the DiLL(+) group and 29 in the DiLL(−) group. DiLL was not associated with supine LL but was strongly correlated with standing LL and pelvic incidence (PI) − LL (PI − LL). In the preoperative spinopelvic alignment, LL and SS in the standing position were significantly smaller in the DiLL(+) group than in the DiLL(−) group, and PI − LL was significantly higher in the DiLL(+) group than in the DiLL(−) group. There was no difference in the clinical outcomes 3 months postoperatively, but low-back pain, especially in the sitting position, was significantly higher in the DiLL(+) group 2 years postoperatively. DiLL was associated with low-back pain in the sitting position, which was likely to persist in the DiLL(+) group postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS We evaluated the relationship between DiLL and spinal sagittal alignment and the influence of DiLL on postoperative outcomes in patients with LSS. DiLL was strongly correlated with PI − LL, and in the DiLL(+) group, postoperative low-back pain relapsed. DiLL can be useful as a new spinal alignment evaluation method that supports the conventional spinal sagittal alignment evaluation.

Spinal Sagittal Alignment Among Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis

Background: Degenerative lumbar canal stenosis (DLS) is a common spinal pathology characterized by radicular pain and neurogenic claudication. Sagittal alignment and its indices have been affected in several spinal pathologies and may play a key role in surgical planning and outcome. In this case-control study, we aimed to assess sagittal alignment among patients with DLS compared to healthy individuals. Materials and Methods: Sixty patients DLS and 60 healthy volunteers were selected. Pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), thoracic kyphosis (TK), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were obtained in lateral standing X-ray radiographs. Results: Mean LL was lower in DLS patients (35.3±10.2) compared to normal controls (44.78±12.95), which was statistically significant (P <0.05). In contrast, there were no significant differences in PI, SVA, and SS between the groups. In patients with DLS, TK was lower, and PT was higher when compared to healthy individuals (P<0.05). Conclusion: Patients with DLS utilize decreased lordosis of the lumbar spine as a compensatory mechanism to decompress the thecal sac and spinal roots and improve their symptoms. Consequently, these patients recruit compensatory adjustments such as thoracic hyperkyphosis and increased PT to maintain sagittal alignment. [GMJ.2021;10:e2128]

The role of sagittal pelvic morphology in the development of adult degenerative scoliosis

Purpose Pelvic morphology dictates the alignment and biomechanics of the spine. Recent observations in different types of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis indicate that individual pelvic morphology is related to the spinal levels in which scoliosis develops: primary lumbar adolescent scoliosis is associated with a higher pelvic incidence (PI) than thoracic scoliosis and non-scoliotic controls. We hypothesize that adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) of the lumbar spine follows the same mechanical principles and is associated with a high PI. Methods This study used an existing CT-scan database, 101 ADS patients were sex and age matched to 101 controls. The PI was measured by two observers with multi-planar reconstruction, perpendicular to the hip-axis according to a previously validated technique. Results The PI was 54.1° ± 10.8° in ADS patients and 47.7° ± 10.8° in non-scoliotic controls (p < 0.001). The median ADS curve apex was the disc L2-3 and median curve length was 4 vertebral levels. The mean supine Cobb angle was 21° ± 8° (ranged 10°–47°). There was no significant correlation between PI and the apex level (p = 0.883), the curve length (p = 0.418) or the Cobb angle (p = 0.518). Conclusions ADS normally develops de novo in the lumbar spine of patients with a higher PI than controls, similar to primary lumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. This suggests a shared mechanical basis of both deformities. Pelvic morphology dictates spinal sagittal alignment, which determines the segments of the spine that are prone to develop scoliosis.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Spinal Sagittal Malalignment in Patients with Osteoporosis

Spinal sagittal malalignment due to vertebral fractures (VFs) induces low back pain (LBP) in patients with osteoporosis. This study aimed to elucidate spinal sagittal malalignment prevalence based on VF number and patient characteristics in individuals with osteoporosis and spinal sagittal malalignment. Spinal sagittal alignment, and VF number were measured in 259 patients with osteoporosis. Spinal sagittal malalignment was defined according to the SRS-Schwab classification of adult spinal deformity. Spinal sagittal malalignment prevalence was evaluated based on VF number. In patients without VFs, bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, LBP scores and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores of normal and sagittal malalignment groups were compared. In 205 of the 259 (79.2%) patients, spinal sagittal malalignment was detected. Sagittal malalignment prevalence in patients with 0, 1, or ≥2 VFs was 72.1%, 86.0%, and 86.3%, respectively. All LBP scores and some subscale of HRQoL scores in patients without VFs were significantly worse for the sagittal malalignment group than the normal alignment group (p < 0.05). The majority of patients with osteoporosis had spinal sagittal malalignment, including ≥70% of patients without VFs. Patients with spinal sagittal malalignment reported worse LBP and HRQoL. These findings suggest that spinal sagittal malalignment is a risk factor for LBP and poor HRQoL in patients with osteoporosis.

Patient-specific statistical shape modeling for optimal spinal sagittal alignment in lumbar spinal fusion

Purpose The present study compared patients developing ASD after L4/5 spinal fusion with a control group using a patient-specific statistical shape model (SSM) to find alignment-differences between the groups. Methods This study included patients who had undergone spinal fusion at L4/5 and either remained asymptomatic (control group; n = 25, follow-up of > 4 years) or required revision surgery for epifusional ASD (n = 22). Landmarks on preoperative and postoperative lateral radiographs were annotated, and the optimal spinal sagittal alignment was calculated for each patient. The two-dimensional distance from the SSM-calculated optimum to the actual positions before and after fusion surgery was compared. Results Postoperatively, the additive mean distance from the SSM-calculated optimum was 86.8 mm in the ASD group and 67.7 mm in the control group (p = 0.119). Greater differences were observed between the groups with a larger distance to the ideal in patients with ASD at more cranial levels. Significant difference between the groups was seen postoperatively in the vertical distance of the operated segment L4. The patients with ASD (5.69 ± 3.0 mm) had a significant greater distance from the SSM as the control group (3.58 ± 3.5 mm, p = 0.034). Conclusion Patients with ASD requiring revision after lumbar spinal fusion have greater differences from the optimal spinal sagittal alignment as an asymptomatic control group calculated by patient-specific statistical shape modeling. Further research might help to understand the value of SSM, in conjunction with already established indexes, for preoperative planning with the aim of reducing the risk of ASD. Level of evidence I Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding

Effect of lumbar laminectomy on spinal sagittal alignment: a systematic review

Purpose Positive spinal sagittal alignment is known to correlate with pain and disability. The association between lumbar spinal stenosis and spinal sagittal alignment is less known, as is the effect of lumbar decompressive surgery on the change in that alignment. The objective was to study the evidence on the effect of lumbar decompressive surgery on sagittal spinopelvic alignment. Methods The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched in October 2019, unrestricted by date of publication. The study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. The risk of systematic bias was assessed according to the NIH Quality Assessment Tool. The data were extracted using a pre-defined standardized form. Results The search resulted in 807 records. Of these, 18 were considered relevant for the qualitative analysis and 15 for the meta-synthesis. The sample size varied from 21 to 89 and the average age was around 70 years. Decompression was mostly performed on one or two levels and the surgical techniques varied widely. The pooled effect sizes were most statistically significant but small. For lumbar lordosis, the effect size was 3.0 (95% CI 2.2 to 3.7) degrees. Respectively, for pelvic tilt and sagittal vertical axis, the effect sizes were − 1.6 (95% CI .2.6 to − 0.5) degrees and − 9.6 (95% CI − 16.0 to − 3.3) mm. Conclusions It appears that decompression may have a small, statistically significant but probably clinically insignificant effect on lumbar lordosis, sagittal vertical axis and pelvic tilt.

Radiographic and clinical evidence: osteoarthritic knee can change surgical result for lumbar degenerative disease patient undergone surgery for 3-year follow-up: a retrospective comparative clinical study

Background There is a paucity of reports clarifying the implication of knee osteoarthritis (OA) on spinal sagittal alignment of patients undergone surgery for lumbar spine. This study aimed to analyze how osteoarthritic knee affects radiographic and clinical results of degenerative lumbar disease patients undergone lumbar fusion. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and radiographs of 74 consecutive degenerative lumbar disease patients who underwent posterior instrumentation and fusion surgery between May 2016 and June 2017 and were followed up for minimum 3 years postoperatively. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the severity of knee OA by Kellgren-Lawrence grading (KLG) scale (group I, KLG 1 or 2 [n = 39]; group II, KLG 3 or 4 [n = 35]). Patient demographic data, comorbidities, spinal sagittal parameters and clinical scores were extracted and compared at preoperative, postoperative 1 month and the ultimate follow-up between the groups. In radiographic assessment, sagittal alignment parameters and sagittal balance were used. In clinical assessment, the scores of Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22) were used. For the frequency analysis of categorical variables across the groups, chi-square test was used and student t tests was used to compare the differences of continuous variables. Results In radiographic assessment, TLK (thoracolumbar kyphosis), LL (lumbar lordosis), PT (pelvic tilt), C7 SVA (sagittal vertical axis) in both groups improved significantly after surgery (p < 0.05). However, LL, PT, C7SVA improved at postoperative 1 month in the group II were not maintained at the ultimate postoperative follow-up. In clinical assessment, preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI, %) and all SRS-22 subscores of the group I and II were not different (p > 0.05). There were significant differences between the groups at the ultimate follow-up in ODI (− 25.6 vs − 12.1, p < 0.001), SRS total score (%) (28 vs 20, p = 0.037), function subscore (1.4 vs 0.7, p = 0.016), and satisfaction subscore (1.6 vs 0.6, p < 0.001). Conclusion Osteoarthritic knee with KLG 3 or 4 have a negative influence on maintaining postoperative spinal sagittal alignment, balance, and the clinical outcomes achieved immediately by posterior instrumentation and fusion for lumbar degenerative disease. Trial registration This study was retrospectively registered with approval by the institutional review board (IRB) of our institution (approval number: 2018–11-007).