Cargando…

Predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: Does interbody device type matter?

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the ability of posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) to achieve lordosis. We hypothesized that an interbody device (IBD) designed for positioning in the anterior disc space produces greater lordosis than IBDs designed for straight-in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crawford, Charles H, Epperson, Thomas N, Gum, Jeffrey L, Owens, R. Kirk, Djurasovic, Mladen, Glassman, Steven D, Carreon, Leah Y
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9386101/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35990008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100145
_version_ 1784769727450578944
author Crawford, Charles H
Epperson, Thomas N
Gum, Jeffrey L
Owens, R. Kirk
Djurasovic, Mladen
Glassman, Steven D
Carreon, Leah Y
author_facet Crawford, Charles H
Epperson, Thomas N
Gum, Jeffrey L
Owens, R. Kirk
Djurasovic, Mladen
Glassman, Steven D
Carreon, Leah Y
author_sort Crawford, Charles H
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the ability of posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) to achieve lordosis. We hypothesized that an interbody device (IBD) designed for positioning in the anterior disc space produces greater lordosis than IBDs designed for straight-in positioning. The purpose of this study is to determine if using either an anterior-position or straight-in position IBD design were associated with successful achievement of postoperative lordosis. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients undergoing a undergoing a single-level, posterior open midline (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion procedure for degenerative spine conditions during a time period when the two types of interbody devices were being used at surgeon discretion were identified from a multi-surgeon academic training center. Patient demographics and radiographic measures including surgical level lordosis (SLL), anterior disc height, middle disc height, posterior disc height, IBD height, and IBD insertion depth were measured on preop, immediate postop, and one-year postop standing radiographs using PACS. Group comparison and regression analysis were performed using SPSS. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included (n=37 anterior, n=34 straight-in). Mean age was 59.8±8.7 years, 32 (52%) were female. There was no difference between IBD type (anterior vs. straight-in) for mean Pre-op SLL (19±7° vs. 20±6°, p=0.7), Post-op SLL (21±5° vs 21±6°, p=0.5), or Change in SLL (2±4° vs. 1±5°, p=0.2). Regression analysis showed that Pre-op SLL was the only variable associated with Change in SLL (Beta = negative 0.48, p=0.000). While the mean Change in SLL could be considered clinically insignificant, there was wide variability: from a loss of 9° to a gain of 13°. Gain of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was <21°, and loss of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was >21°. CONCLUSIONS: While group averages showed an insignificant change in segmental lordosis following a posterior (transforaminal) interbody fusion regardless of interbody device type, pre-operative lordosis was correlated with a clinically significant change in segmental lordosis. Preoperative hypolordotic discs were more likely to gain significant lordosis, while preoperative hyperlordotic discs were more likely to lose significant lordosis. Surgeon awareness of this tendency can help guide surgical planning and technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9386101
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93861012022-08-19 Predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: Does interbody device type matter? Crawford, Charles H Epperson, Thomas N Gum, Jeffrey L Owens, R. Kirk Djurasovic, Mladen Glassman, Steven D Carreon, Leah Y N Am Spine Soc J Clinical Studies BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the ability of posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) to achieve lordosis. We hypothesized that an interbody device (IBD) designed for positioning in the anterior disc space produces greater lordosis than IBDs designed for straight-in positioning. The purpose of this study is to determine if using either an anterior-position or straight-in position IBD design were associated with successful achievement of postoperative lordosis. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients undergoing a undergoing a single-level, posterior open midline (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion procedure for degenerative spine conditions during a time period when the two types of interbody devices were being used at surgeon discretion were identified from a multi-surgeon academic training center. Patient demographics and radiographic measures including surgical level lordosis (SLL), anterior disc height, middle disc height, posterior disc height, IBD height, and IBD insertion depth were measured on preop, immediate postop, and one-year postop standing radiographs using PACS. Group comparison and regression analysis were performed using SPSS. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included (n=37 anterior, n=34 straight-in). Mean age was 59.8±8.7 years, 32 (52%) were female. There was no difference between IBD type (anterior vs. straight-in) for mean Pre-op SLL (19±7° vs. 20±6°, p=0.7), Post-op SLL (21±5° vs 21±6°, p=0.5), or Change in SLL (2±4° vs. 1±5°, p=0.2). Regression analysis showed that Pre-op SLL was the only variable associated with Change in SLL (Beta = negative 0.48, p=0.000). While the mean Change in SLL could be considered clinically insignificant, there was wide variability: from a loss of 9° to a gain of 13°. Gain of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was <21°, and loss of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was >21°. CONCLUSIONS: While group averages showed an insignificant change in segmental lordosis following a posterior (transforaminal) interbody fusion regardless of interbody device type, pre-operative lordosis was correlated with a clinically significant change in segmental lordosis. Preoperative hypolordotic discs were more likely to gain significant lordosis, while preoperative hyperlordotic discs were more likely to lose significant lordosis. Surgeon awareness of this tendency can help guide surgical planning and technique. Elsevier 2022-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9386101/ /pubmed/35990008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100145 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Clinical Studies
Crawford, Charles H
Epperson, Thomas N
Gum, Jeffrey L
Owens, R. Kirk
Djurasovic, Mladen
Glassman, Steven D
Carreon, Leah Y
Predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: Does interbody device type matter?
title Predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: Does interbody device type matter?
title_full Predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: Does interbody device type matter?
title_fullStr Predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: Does interbody device type matter?
title_full_unstemmed Predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: Does interbody device type matter?
title_short Predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: Does interbody device type matter?
title_sort predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: does interbody device type matter?
topic Clinical Studies
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9386101/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35990008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100145
work_keys_str_mv AT crawfordcharlesh predictorsofsegmentallumbarlordosisfollowingmidlineposteriortransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiondoesinterbodydevicetypematter
AT eppersonthomasn predictorsofsegmentallumbarlordosisfollowingmidlineposteriortransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiondoesinterbodydevicetypematter
AT gumjeffreyl predictorsofsegmentallumbarlordosisfollowingmidlineposteriortransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiondoesinterbodydevicetypematter
AT owensrkirk predictorsofsegmentallumbarlordosisfollowingmidlineposteriortransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiondoesinterbodydevicetypematter
AT djurasovicmladen predictorsofsegmentallumbarlordosisfollowingmidlineposteriortransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiondoesinterbodydevicetypematter
AT glassmanstevend predictorsofsegmentallumbarlordosisfollowingmidlineposteriortransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiondoesinterbodydevicetypematter
AT carreonleahy predictorsofsegmentallumbarlordosisfollowingmidlineposteriortransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiondoesinterbodydevicetypematter