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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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