What factors are associated with a better restoration of pelvic version after adult spinal deformity surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Poor restoration of pelvic version after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is associated with an increased risk of mechanical complications and worse quality of life. We studied the factors linked to the improvement of postoperative pelvic version.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter ASD database. Selection criteria were: operated patients having preoperative severe pelvic retroversion as per GAP score (Relative Pelvic Version-RPV < - 15°); panlumbar fusions to the pelvis; 2-year follow-up. Group A comprised patients with any postoperative improvement of RPV score, and group B had no improvement. Groups were compared regarding baseline characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative sagittal parameters. Parametric and non-parametric analyses were employed.

RESULTS

177 patients were studied, median age 67 years (61; 72.5), 83.6% female. Groups were homogeneous in baseline demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative sagittal parameters (p > 0.05). The difference in RPV improvement was 11.56º. Group A (137 patients) underwent a higher percentage of ALIF procedures (OR = 6.66; p = 0.049), and posterior osteotomies (OR = 4.96; p < 0.001) especially tricolumnar (OR = 2.31; p = 0.041). It also showed a lower percentage of TLIF procedures (OR = 0.45; p = 0.028), and posterior decompression (OR = 0.44; p = 0.024). Group A displayed better postoperative L4-S1 angle and relative lumbar lordosis (RLL), leading to improved sacral slope (and RPV), and global alignment (RSA). Group A patients had longer instrumentations (11.45 vs 10; p = 0.047) and hospitalization time (13 vs 11; p = 0.045). All postoperative sagittal parameters remained significantly better in group A through follow-up. However, differences between the groups narrowed over time.

CONCLUSIONS

ALIF procedures and posterior column osteotomies improved pelvic version postoperatively, and associated better L4-S1 and lumbar lordosis restoration, indirectly improving all other sagittal parameters. However, these improvements seemed to fade during the 2-year follow-up.