Lumbar Lordosis Redistribution and Segmental Correction in Adult Spinal Deformity: Does it Matter?
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Diebo Bassel G, Balmaceno-Criss Mariah, Lafage Renaud, Daher Mohammad, Singh Manjot, Hamilton D Kojo, Smith Justin S, Eastlack Robert K, Fessler Richard, Gum Jeffrey L, Gupta Munish C, Hostin Richard, Kebaish Khaled M, Lewis Stephen, Line Breton G, Nunley Pierce D, Mundis Gregory M, Passias Peter G, Protopsaltis Themistocles S, Turner Jay, Buell Thomas, Scheer Justin K, Mullin Jeffery, Soroceanu Alex, Ames Christopher P, Bess Shay, Shaffrey Christopher I, Lenke Lawrence G, Schwab Frank J, Lafage Virginie, Burton Douglas C, Daniels Alan H, International Spine Study Group (ISSG)
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of correcting normative segmental lordosis values on postoperative outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remain unclear.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were grouped based on offset to normative segmental lordosis values, extracted from recent publications. Matched patients were within 10% of the cohort's mean offset, less than or over 10% were undercorrected and overcorrected. Surgical technique, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and two years.
RESULTS: In total, 510 patients with a mean age of 64.6, a mean Charlson comorbidity index 2.08, and a mean follow-up of 25 months. L4-5 was least likely to be matched (19.1%), while L4-S1 was the most likely (24.3%). More patients were overcorrected at proximal levels (T10-L2; undercorrected, U: 32.2% vs. matched, M: 21.7% vs. overcorrected, O: 46.1%) and undercorrected at distal levels (L4-S1: U: 39.0% vs. M: 24.3% vs. O: 36.8%). Postoperative Oswestry disability index was comparable across correction groups at all spinal levels except at L4-S1 and T10-L2/L4-S1, where overcorrected patients and matched were better than undercorrected (U: 32.1 vs. M: 25.4 vs. O: 26.5, P =0.005; U: 36.2 vs. M: 24.2 vs. O: 26.8, P =0.001; respectively). Patients overcorrected at T10-L2 experienced higher rates of proximal junctional failure (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P <0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebrae (U: -9.2±9.4° vs. M: -9.6±9.1° vs. O: -12.2±10.0°, P <0.001), whereas undercorrection at these levels led to higher rates of revision for implant failure (U: 14.2% vs. M: 7.3% vs. O: 6.4%, P =0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing fusion for adult spinal deformity suffer higher rates of proximal junctional failure with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.