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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |