Cargando…
Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Selection to S1 or Ilium Versus L4 or L5 in Adult Spinal Deformity: Factors for Consideration in 349 Patients With a Mean 46-Month Follow-Up
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) following spinal fusion with the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) at L4/L5 versus S1/ilium. METHODS: A multicenter ASD database was evaluated. Patients were categorized into 2...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10189326/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33906457 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211009178 |
_version_ | 1785043062275178496 |
---|---|
author | Yao, Yu-Cheng Kim, Han Jo Bannwarth, Mathieu Smith, Justin Bess, Shay Klineberg, Eric Ames, Christopher P. Shaffrey, Christopher I. Burton, Douglas Gupta, Munish Mundis, Gregory M. Hostin, Richard Schwab, Frank Lafage, Virginie |
author_facet | Yao, Yu-Cheng Kim, Han Jo Bannwarth, Mathieu Smith, Justin Bess, Shay Klineberg, Eric Ames, Christopher P. Shaffrey, Christopher I. Burton, Douglas Gupta, Munish Mundis, Gregory M. Hostin, Richard Schwab, Frank Lafage, Virginie |
author_sort | Yao, Yu-Cheng |
collection | PubMed |
description | STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) following spinal fusion with the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) at L4/L5 versus S1/ilium. METHODS: A multicenter ASD database was evaluated. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on LIV levels—groups L (fusion to L4/L5) and S (fusion to S1/ilium). Both groups were propensity matched by age and preoperative radiographic alignments. Patient demographics, operative details, radiographic parameters, revision rates, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 349 patients had complete data, with a mean follow-up of 46 months. Patients in group S (n = 311) were older and had larger sagittal and coronal plane deformities than those in group L (n = 38). After matching, 28 patients were allocated to each group with similar demographic, radiographic, and clinical parameters. Sagittal alignment restoration at postoperative week 6 was significantly better in group S than in group L, but it was similar in both groups at the 2-year follow-up. Fusion to S1/ilium involved a longer operating time, higher PJK rates, and greater PJK angles than that to L4/L5. There were no significant differences in the complication and revision rates between the groups. Both groups showed significant improvements in HRQOL scores. CONCLUSIONS: Fusion to S1/ilium had better sagittal alignment restoration at postoperative week 6 and involved higher PJK rates and greater PJK angles than that to L4/L5. The clinical outcomes and rates of revision surgery and complications were similar between the groups. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10189326 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101893262023-05-18 Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Selection to S1 or Ilium Versus L4 or L5 in Adult Spinal Deformity: Factors for Consideration in 349 Patients With a Mean 46-Month Follow-Up Yao, Yu-Cheng Kim, Han Jo Bannwarth, Mathieu Smith, Justin Bess, Shay Klineberg, Eric Ames, Christopher P. Shaffrey, Christopher I. Burton, Douglas Gupta, Munish Mundis, Gregory M. Hostin, Richard Schwab, Frank Lafage, Virginie Global Spine J Original Articles STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) following spinal fusion with the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) at L4/L5 versus S1/ilium. METHODS: A multicenter ASD database was evaluated. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on LIV levels—groups L (fusion to L4/L5) and S (fusion to S1/ilium). Both groups were propensity matched by age and preoperative radiographic alignments. Patient demographics, operative details, radiographic parameters, revision rates, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 349 patients had complete data, with a mean follow-up of 46 months. Patients in group S (n = 311) were older and had larger sagittal and coronal plane deformities than those in group L (n = 38). After matching, 28 patients were allocated to each group with similar demographic, radiographic, and clinical parameters. Sagittal alignment restoration at postoperative week 6 was significantly better in group S than in group L, but it was similar in both groups at the 2-year follow-up. Fusion to S1/ilium involved a longer operating time, higher PJK rates, and greater PJK angles than that to L4/L5. There were no significant differences in the complication and revision rates between the groups. Both groups showed significant improvements in HRQOL scores. CONCLUSIONS: Fusion to S1/ilium had better sagittal alignment restoration at postoperative week 6 and involved higher PJK rates and greater PJK angles than that to L4/L5. The clinical outcomes and rates of revision surgery and complications were similar between the groups. SAGE Publications 2021-04-28 2023-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10189326/ /pubmed/33906457 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211009178 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Yao, Yu-Cheng Kim, Han Jo Bannwarth, Mathieu Smith, Justin Bess, Shay Klineberg, Eric Ames, Christopher P. Shaffrey, Christopher I. Burton, Douglas Gupta, Munish Mundis, Gregory M. Hostin, Richard Schwab, Frank Lafage, Virginie Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Selection to S1 or Ilium Versus L4 or L5 in Adult Spinal Deformity: Factors for Consideration in 349 Patients With a Mean 46-Month Follow-Up |
title | Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Selection to S1 or Ilium Versus L4 or L5
in Adult Spinal Deformity: Factors for Consideration in 349 Patients With a Mean
46-Month Follow-Up |
title_full | Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Selection to S1 or Ilium Versus L4 or L5
in Adult Spinal Deformity: Factors for Consideration in 349 Patients With a Mean
46-Month Follow-Up |
title_fullStr | Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Selection to S1 or Ilium Versus L4 or L5
in Adult Spinal Deformity: Factors for Consideration in 349 Patients With a Mean
46-Month Follow-Up |
title_full_unstemmed | Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Selection to S1 or Ilium Versus L4 or L5
in Adult Spinal Deformity: Factors for Consideration in 349 Patients With a Mean
46-Month Follow-Up |
title_short | Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Selection to S1 or Ilium Versus L4 or L5
in Adult Spinal Deformity: Factors for Consideration in 349 Patients With a Mean
46-Month Follow-Up |
title_sort | lowest instrumented vertebra selection to s1 or ilium versus l4 or l5
in adult spinal deformity: factors for consideration in 349 patients with a mean
46-month follow-up |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10189326/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33906457 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211009178 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yaoyucheng lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT kimhanjo lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT bannwarthmathieu lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT smithjustin lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT bessshay lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT klinebergeric lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT ameschristopherp lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT shaffreychristopheri lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT burtondouglas lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT guptamunish lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT mundisgregorym lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT hostinrichard lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT schwabfrank lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup AT lafagevirginie lowestinstrumentedvertebraselectiontos1oriliumversusl4orl5inadultspinaldeformityfactorsforconsiderationin349patientswithamean46monthfollowup |