The Lumbosacral Fractional Curve vs Maximum Coronal Cobb Angle in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients with Coronal Malalignment: Which Matters More?

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Objectives: In patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery we sought to: 1) report preoperative and postoperative lumbosacral fractional (LSF) curve and maximum coronal Cobb angles and 2) determine their impact on radiographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Methods: A single-institution cohort study was undertaken. The LSF curve was the cobb angle between the sacrum and most tilted lower lumbar vertebra. Coronal/sagittal vertical axis (CVA/SVA) were collected. Patients were compared between 4 groups: 1) Neutral Alignment (NA); 2) coronal malalignment only (CM); 3) Sagittal malalignment only (SM); and 4) Combined-Coronal-Sagittal-Malalignment (CCSM). Outcomes including postoperative CM, postoperative coronal vertical axis, complications, readmissions, reoperation, and PROs.

Results: A total of 243 patients underwent ASD surgery with mean total instrumented levels of 13.5. Mean LSF curve was 12.1±9.9°(0.2-62.3) and mean max Cobb angle was 43.0±26.5° (0.0-134.3). The largest mean LSF curves were seen in patients with CM (14.6°) and CCSM (13.1°) compared to NA (12.1°) and SM (9.5°) (p=0.100). A higher LSF curve was seen in patients with fusion to the sacrum and instrumentation to the pelvis (p=0.009), and a higher LSF curve was associated with more TLIFs (p=0.031). Postoperatively, more TLIFs were associated with greater amount of LSF curve correction (p<0.001). Comparing the LSF and the max Cob angle among Qiu types, the highest mean max Cobb angle was in Qiu Type B patients (p=0.025), whereas the highest mean LSF curve was in Qiu Type C patients (p=0.037). Moreover, 82.7% of patients had a LSF curve opposite the max Cobb angle. The LSF curve was larger than the max Cobb angle in 22/243 (9.1%) patients, and most of these 22 patients were Qiu Type A (59.1%). Regarding correction, the max Cobb angle achieved more correction than the LSF curve, judged by the percent improved from preop (54.5% Cobb vs. 46.5% LSF, p=0.025) in patients with max cobb>20° and LSF curve >5°. The LSF curve underwent greater correction in Qiu Type C patients (9.2°) compared to Type A (5.7°) and Type B (5.1°) (p=0.023); however, the max Cobb angle was similarly corrected among Qiu Types: Type A 21.8°, Type B 24.6°, and Type C 25.4° (p=0.602). Minimal differences were seen comparing the preop/postop/change in LSF curve and max Cobb angle regarding postop CM, postop CVA, complications, readmissions, reoperation, and PROs.

Conclusions: The LSF curve was highest in patients with CM, CCSM, and Qiu Type C curves. Most patients had a LSF curve opposite the max Cobb angle. The max Cobb angle was more often corrected than the LSF curve. The LSF curve underwent greater correction among Qiu Type C patients, whereas the max Cobb angle was similarly corrected among all Qiu Types. No clear trend was seen regarding postoperative complications and PROs between the LSF curve and max Cobb angle.