Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Versus Multilevel Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity: Trends, Outcomes, and Cost.

STUDY

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) with multilevel anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in posterior long-segment fusion.

BACKGROUND

PSO and ALIF/LLIF are 2 techniques used to restore lumbar lordosis and correct sagittal alignment, with each holding its unique advantages and disadvantages. As there are situations where both techniques can be employed, it is important to compare the risks and benefits of both.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent PSO or multilevel ALIF/LLIF with posterior fusion of 7-12 levels and pelvic fixation were identified. 1:1 propensity score was used to match PSO and ALIF/LLIF cohorts for age, sex, and relevant comorbidities, including smoking status. Logistic regression was used to compare medical and surgical outcomes. Trends and costs were generated for both groups as well.

RESULTS

ALIF/LLIF utilization in posterior long fusion has been steadily increasing since 2010, whereas PSO utilization has significantly dropped since 2017. PSO was associated with an increased risk of durotomy ( P < 0.001) and neurological injury ( P = 0.018). ALIF/LLIF was associated with increased rates of postoperative radiculopathy ( P = 0.005). Patients who underwent PSO had higher rates of pseudarthrosis within 1 and 2 years ( P = 0.015; P = 0.010), 1-year hardware failure ( P = 0.028), and 2-year reinsertion of instrumentation ( P = 0.009). Reoperation rates for both approaches were not statistically different at any time point throughout the 5-year period. In addition, there were no significant differences in both procedural and 90-day postoperative costs.

CONCLUSIONS

PSO was associated with higher rates of surgical complications compared with anterior approaches. However, there was no significant difference in overall reoperation rates. Spine surgeons should select the optimal technique for a given patient and the type of lordotic correction required.