{"title":"Coronal imbalance in degenerative lumbar scoliosis: Prevalence and influence on surgical decision-making for spinal osteotomy.","authors":"H Bao, P Yan, Y Qiu, Z Liu, F Zhu","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.98B9.37273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>There is a paucity of information on the pre-operative coronal imbalance in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) and its influence on surgical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 284 DLS patients were recruited into this study, among whom 69 patients were treated surgically and the remaining 215 patients conservatively Patients were classified based on the coronal balance distance (CBD): Type A, CBD < 3 cm; Type B, CBD > 3 cm and C7 Plumb Line (C7PL) shifted to the concave side of the curve; Type C, CBD > 3 cm and C7PL shifted to the convex side.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 99 of the 284 (34.8%) patient presented with a pre-operative coronal imbalance (mean CBD: 48.5, standard deviation 18.7 mm). More patients with a Type B malalignment were observed than with a Type C malalignment (62 versus 37). A total of 21 pf the 69 (30.4%) surgically treated patients had a post-operative coronal imbalance, which was found to be more prevalent in Type C patients (p < 0.001). At follow-up, less improvement was observed in terms of Short Form-36 Physical Component Score and visual analogue score for back pain (p = 0.034 and 0.025, respectively) in Type C patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows that patients with Type C coronal malalignment may be at greater risk of post-operative coronal imbalance following posterior osteotomy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1227-33.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"98-B 9","pages":"1227-33"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1302/0301-620X.98B9.37273","citationCount":"78","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B9.37273","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 78
Abstract
Aims: There is a paucity of information on the pre-operative coronal imbalance in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) and its influence on surgical outcomes.
Patients and methods: A total of 284 DLS patients were recruited into this study, among whom 69 patients were treated surgically and the remaining 215 patients conservatively Patients were classified based on the coronal balance distance (CBD): Type A, CBD < 3 cm; Type B, CBD > 3 cm and C7 Plumb Line (C7PL) shifted to the concave side of the curve; Type C, CBD > 3 cm and C7PL shifted to the convex side.
Results: A total of 99 of the 284 (34.8%) patient presented with a pre-operative coronal imbalance (mean CBD: 48.5, standard deviation 18.7 mm). More patients with a Type B malalignment were observed than with a Type C malalignment (62 versus 37). A total of 21 pf the 69 (30.4%) surgically treated patients had a post-operative coronal imbalance, which was found to be more prevalent in Type C patients (p < 0.001). At follow-up, less improvement was observed in terms of Short Form-36 Physical Component Score and visual analogue score for back pain (p = 0.034 and 0.025, respectively) in Type C patients.
Conclusion: This study shows that patients with Type C coronal malalignment may be at greater risk of post-operative coronal imbalance following posterior osteotomy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1227-33.
期刊介绍:
We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.