4.6 Article

The impact of interbody approach and lumbar level on segmental, adjacent, and sagittal alignment in degenerative lumbar pathology: a radiographic analysis six months following surgery

Journal

SPINE JOURNAL
Volume 22, Issue 8, Pages 1318-1324

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.03.010

Keywords

Adjacent level degeneration; Degenerative lumbar spine; Lumbar fusion; Lumbar lordosis; Pelvic incidence; Sagittal alignment; Segmental lordosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study compared the 6-month postoperative radiographic outcomes of lumbar spine in patients undergoing transforaminal (TLIF), posterior (PLIF), anterior (ALIF), and lateral (LLIF) interbody fusions. The results showed that ALIF/LLIF procedures resulted in improved segmental lordosis and reduced pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch compared to TLIF/PLIF procedures. Additionally, ALIF/LLIF procedures decreased lordosis at adjacent levels, leading to a more neutral position.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Interbody fusion, including: transforaminal (TLIF), posterior (PLIF), anterior (ALIF), and lateral (LLIF); effectively treat lumbar degenerative pathology and provide spinopelvic balance. Although the decision on surgical approach and technique are multifactorial and patient specific, the impact of the interbody approach on segmental and adjacent level lordosis could be an important factor to consider during pre-operative planning to achieve pre-specified alignment goals. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the 6-month postoperative radiographic outcomes in the lumbar spine following 1 to 2 level transforaminal (TLIF), posterior (PLIF), anterior (ALIF), and lateral (LLIF) interbody fusions at the L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 levels. As our primary outcome, we evaluated the change in segmental lordosis at the level of fusion in ALIF/LLIF approaches compared to TLIF/PLIF. Secondarily, we evaluated the pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and examined the compensatory lordotic changes at the adjacent levels 6 months following surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: This retrospective study included 18 centers of various practice settings across the United States. Patients were included in the study if they underwent a one- or two-level primary lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Measurements of the pre-operative and 6-month post-operative lumbar AP and lateral lumbar plain radiographs included: pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt, lumbar lordosis from L1-S1 (LL), as well as segmental lordosis (SL) of each segment between Ll-S1. METHODS: Due to there being 2 evaluated time points, patients were then grouped based on alignment into categories of preserved, restored, not corrected, and worsened. RESULTS: 474 patients underwent 608 levels of fusion. ALIF/LLIF resulted in significantly more segmental lordosis compared to TLIF/PLIF procedures at both L4-5 and L5-S1 (p<.001). Overall, ALIF/LLIF resulted in significantly more global lumbar lordotic alignment change compared to TLIF/PLIF (p=.01). Whether patients' alignment was preserved versus worsened was not significantly predicted by type of procedure. Similarly, whether patients' alignment was restored versus not corrected was not significantly predicted by type of procedure. Finally, anterior approaches resulted in decreased lordosis at adjacent levels, thus resulting in a more neutral position. CONCLUSION: In this large multicenter retrospective study of 1 to 2 level interbody fusion surgeries, we identified that A/LL1F procedures at L4-L5 and L5-S1 resulted in greater segmental lordosis restoration and PI-LL mismatch improvement compared to T/PLIF procedures. A/LLIF may also significantly reduce lordosis (compared to T/PLIF) at the adjacent levels in a fashion that serves to reduce the lumbar lordosis that may have been increased at the fused level. (C) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available