Impact of preoperative age-adjusted sagittal imbalance on radiographic and clinical outcomes following 1-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of neurosurgery. Spine Pub Date : 2024-08-02 Print Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.3171/2024.4.SPINE23737
Omri Maayan, Tejas Subramanian, Andre M Samuel, Pratyush Shahi, Avani S Vaishnav, Tomoyuki Asada, Troy B Amen, Olivia C Tuma, Maximilian K Korsun, Nishtha Singh, Anthony Pajak, Sumedha Singh, Kasra Araghi, Evan D Sheha, James E Dowdell, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz A Qureshi
{"title":"Impact of preoperative age-adjusted sagittal imbalance on radiographic and clinical outcomes following 1-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis.","authors":"Omri Maayan, Tejas Subramanian, Andre M Samuel, Pratyush Shahi, Avani S Vaishnav, Tomoyuki Asada, Troy B Amen, Olivia C Tuma, Maximilian K Korsun, Nishtha Singh, Anthony Pajak, Sumedha Singh, Kasra Araghi, Evan D Sheha, James E Dowdell, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz A Qureshi","doi":"10.3171/2024.4.SPINE23737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Prior studies investigating the use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions and concomitant sagittal deformity have not stratified patients by preoperative pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, which is the earliest parameter to deteriorate in mild sagittal deformity. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine the impact of preoperative PI-LL mismatch on clinical outcomes and sagittal balance restoration among patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive adult patients undergoing primary 1-level MI-TLIF between April 2017 and April 2022 for DS with ≥ 6 months radiographic follow-up were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System at preoperative, early postoperative (< 6 months), and late postoperative (≥ 6 months) time points. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMs was also evaluated. Radiographic parameters included PI, LL, pelvic tilt (PT), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Patients were categorized into balanced and unbalanced groups based on preoperative PI-LL mismatch according to age-adjusted alignment goals. Changes in radiographic parameters and PROMs were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty patients were included (L4-5 82.5%, grade I spondylolisthesis 82.5%, unbalanced 58.8%). Mean clinical and radiographic follow-up were 17.0 and 8.3 months, respectively. The average preoperative PI-LL was 18.8° in the unbalanced group and -3.3° in the balanced group. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch had significantly worse preoperative PT (26.2° vs 16.4°, p < 0.001) and SVA (53.2 vs 9.0 mm, p = 0.001) compared with balanced patients. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch also showed significantly worse PI-LL (16.0° vs 0.54°, p < 0.001), PT (25.9° vs 18.7°, p < 0.001), and SVA (49.4 vs 22.8 mm, p = 0.013) at long-term follow-up. No significant radiographic improvement was observed among unbalanced patients. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05) except for SF-12 mental component score. Achievement of MCID for VAS back score was significantly greater among patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch (85.7% vs 65.5%, p = 0.045).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although 1-level MI-TLIF did not restore sagittal alignment in patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch, patients presenting with DS can expect significant improvement in PROMs following 1-level MI-TLIF regardless of preoperative alignment or extent of correction. Thus, attaining good clinical outcomes in patients with mild sagittal imbalance may not require addressing imbalance directly.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"489-497"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.4.SPINE23737","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Prior studies investigating the use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions and concomitant sagittal deformity have not stratified patients by preoperative pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, which is the earliest parameter to deteriorate in mild sagittal deformity. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine the impact of preoperative PI-LL mismatch on clinical outcomes and sagittal balance restoration among patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).

Methods: Consecutive adult patients undergoing primary 1-level MI-TLIF between April 2017 and April 2022 for DS with ≥ 6 months radiographic follow-up were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System at preoperative, early postoperative (< 6 months), and late postoperative (≥ 6 months) time points. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMs was also evaluated. Radiographic parameters included PI, LL, pelvic tilt (PT), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Patients were categorized into balanced and unbalanced groups based on preoperative PI-LL mismatch according to age-adjusted alignment goals. Changes in radiographic parameters and PROMs were evaluated.

Results: Eighty patients were included (L4-5 82.5%, grade I spondylolisthesis 82.5%, unbalanced 58.8%). Mean clinical and radiographic follow-up were 17.0 and 8.3 months, respectively. The average preoperative PI-LL was 18.8° in the unbalanced group and -3.3° in the balanced group. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch had significantly worse preoperative PT (26.2° vs 16.4°, p < 0.001) and SVA (53.2 vs 9.0 mm, p = 0.001) compared with balanced patients. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch also showed significantly worse PI-LL (16.0° vs 0.54°, p < 0.001), PT (25.9° vs 18.7°, p < 0.001), and SVA (49.4 vs 22.8 mm, p = 0.013) at long-term follow-up. No significant radiographic improvement was observed among unbalanced patients. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05) except for SF-12 mental component score. Achievement of MCID for VAS back score was significantly greater among patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch (85.7% vs 65.5%, p = 0.045).

Conclusions: Although 1-level MI-TLIF did not restore sagittal alignment in patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch, patients presenting with DS can expect significant improvement in PROMs following 1-level MI-TLIF regardless of preoperative alignment or extent of correction. Thus, attaining good clinical outcomes in patients with mild sagittal imbalance may not require addressing imbalance directly.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经椎间孔腰椎椎体融合术治疗退行性脊椎滑脱症后,术前根据年龄调整的矢状不平衡对影像学和临床疗效的影响。
研究目的之前的研究调查了使用微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(MI-TLIF)治疗退行性腰椎病和伴有矢状面畸形的患者,但没有根据术前骨盆入量(PI)-腰椎前凸(LL)不匹配对患者进行分层,而腰椎前凸是轻度矢状面畸形中最早恶化的参数。因此,本研究旨在确定术前PI-LL不匹配对因退行性脊椎滑脱症(DS)而接受MI-TLIF手术的患者的临床预后和矢状平衡恢复的影响:方法:纳入2017年4月至2022年4月期间因DS接受初级1级MI-TLIF且放射学随访≥6个月的连续成年患者。患者报告结果测量指标(PROMs)包括术前、术后早期(<6个月)和术后晚期(≥6个月)时间点的Oswestry残疾指数、视觉模拟量表(VAS)、12项短式健康调查(SF-12)和患者报告结果测量信息系统。此外,还评估了 PROMs 的最小临床重要性差异 (MCID)。放射学参数包括PI、LL、骨盆倾斜(PT)和矢状纵轴(SVA)。根据年龄调整后的对齐目标,按照术前 PI-LL 不匹配情况将患者分为平衡组和不平衡组。评估放射学参数和 PROMs 的变化:共纳入 80 例患者(L4-5 82.5%,I 级脊柱滑脱 82.5%,不平衡 58.8%)。平均临床和影像学随访时间分别为 17.0 个月和 8.3 个月。非平衡组术前PI-LL平均为18.8°,平衡组为-3.3°。与平衡组患者相比,术前 PI-LL 不匹配的患者术前 PT(26.2° vs 16.4°,p < 0.001)和 SVA(53.2 vs 9.0 mm,p = 0.001)明显较差。术前PI-LL不匹配的患者在长期随访时PI-LL(16.0° vs 0.54°,p < 0.001)、PT(25.9° vs 18.7°,p < 0.001)和SVA(49.4 vs 22.8 mm,p = 0.013)也明显降低。在不平衡患者中未观察到明显的放射学改善。除 SF-12 精神成分评分外,所有患者的 PROM 均有明显改善(p < 0.05)。在术前PI-LL不匹配的患者中,VAS背部评分达到MCID的比例明显更高(85.7% vs 65.5%,p = 0.045):结论:尽管1级MI-TLIF无法恢复术前PI-LL不匹配患者的矢状对齐,但无论术前对齐情况或矫正程度如何,DS患者在1级MI-TLIF术后的PROMs都会有明显改善。因此,轻度矢状不平衡患者要获得良好的临床疗效,可能并不需要直接解决不平衡问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.
期刊最新文献
A propensity score-matched comparison between single-stage and multistage anterior/posterior lumbar fusion surgery: a Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative study. Return to play in professional football players following traumatic cervical spine injury: expert opinions from the National Football League spine surgeons. Assessing the prognostic impact of body composition phenotypes on surgical outcomes and survival in patients with spinal metastasis: a deep learning approach to preoperative CT analysis. Presentation, management, and outcome of traumatic spine injuries in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Opioid prescribing guidelines for spine surgery patients: a multisite analysis of guideline implementation and monitoring with an automated text messaging platform.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1