No abstract

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study.Objective. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a preoperative difference in lumbar lordosis (D-LL) between the standing and supine positions is associated with clinical outcomes after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Summary of Background Data. Several factors have been reported to be associated with surgical outcomes after TLIF. However, the association between preoperative D-LL and clinical outcomes after TLIF is unknown. Methods. We enrolled 45 lumbar degenerative disease patients (mean age: 65.7 AE 11.3 years old; 24 males) treated with singlelevel TLIF. Surgical outcomes were assessed using Oswestry disability index, visual analog scale (VAS; low back pain [LBP], lower-extremity pain, numbness, LBP in motion, in standing, and in sitting), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for intermittent claudication (JOA score), and Nakai's scoring system. The preoperative D-LL between the standing radiograph and computed tomography (CT) in the supine position was defined as LL in supine CT-standing radiograph. Patients were divided into two groups according to D-LL value (D-LL >À48, and D-LL À48). Clinical outcomes were compared between the groups, and correlations between preoperative D-LL and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results. There were no significant differences in preoperative clinical parameters between the two groups. Postoperative VASs for lower extremity pain, numbness, LBP in standing, and JOA score in D-LL >À48 group were significantly worse than in the D-LL À48 group (P < 0.05). Preoperative D-LL showed a weak correlation with postoperative lower extremity pain and numbness (P < 0.05). Conclusion. This study revealed that lumbar degenerative disease patients, who have greater preoperative kyphotic lumbar alignment in the standing versus supine position, tend to have postoperative residual symptoms after TLIF. A preoperative comparison of lateral radiographs between the standing and supine positions is useful to predict patients' postoperative residual symptoms.

IntroductionLumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is one of the most common causes of low back pain. The lumbar muscles, such as the psoas major (PM), erector spinae (ES), and multifidus (MF) muscles, play an important role in the stability and functional movement of the lumbar spine. The quantities and qualities of these muscles may be related to the occurrence of DS and lumbopelvic parameters, such as lumbar lordosis (LL) and sacral slope (SS). However, the influence of lumbar muscles on DS and lumbopelvic alignment is not well understood. MethodsPatients with L4 DS (DS group, n=25) and without DS (non-DS group, n=25) were included. Using sagittal reconstructed CT images of patients who visited our hospital for reasons other than low back disorders, LL, upper lumbar lordosis ([ULL] L1-L4), lower lumbar lordosis ([LLL] L4-S1), and SS were examined. To evaluate the quantity and quality of lumbar muscles, the gross cross-sectional area (GCSA), functional cross-sectional area (FCSA), and fat infiltration (FI) of the PM, ES, and MF muscles were measured by CT images. The lumbopelvic parameters, FCSA, GCSA, and FI of lumbar muscles were compared between the two groups. Then, each lumbar muscle parameter was analyzed for correlation with DS and lumbopelvic parameters. ResultsDS patients displayed significantly greater ULL and lower FI of the PM and ES muscles than non-DS patients (p=0.0078, 0.031, and 0.010, respectively). The FI of the ES muscle was significantly correlated with the presence of DS (p=0.010). The FCSA of the ES and MF muscles and the GCSA of the MF muscle showed a significant correlation with LL and SS in the non-DS group (p<0.05), but not in the DS group.. ConclusionULL was greater in L4 DS patients, possibly related to the better quality of the ES muscle. All DS patients showed mild (grade I) spondylolisthesis, suggesting the possibility that lumbar muscle quality is better in patients with mild DS than in those without DS. The ES and MF muscles may play an important role in maintaining the lumbar lordotic angle in non-DS patients but not in DS patients.

OBJECTIVE The authors sought to evaluate the relationship between the difference in lumbar lordosis (DiLL) in the preoperative supine and standing positions and spinal sagittal alignment in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to determine whether this difference affects the clinical outcome of laminectomy. METHODS Sixty patients who underwent single-level unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression of LSS were evaluated. Spinopelvic parameters in the supine and standing positions were measured preoperatively and at 3 months and 2 years postoperatively. DiLL between the supine and standing positions was determined as follows: DiLL = supine LL − standing LL. On the basis of this determination patients were then categorized into DiLL(+) and DiLL(−) groups. The relationship between DiLL and preoperative spinopelvic parameters was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. In addition, clinical outcomes such as visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores between the two groups were measured, and their relationship to DiLL was evaluated using two-group comparison and multivariate analysis. RESULTS There were 31 patients in the DiLL(+) group and 29 in the DiLL(−) group. DiLL was not associated with supine LL but was strongly correlated with standing LL and pelvic incidence (PI) − LL (PI − LL). In the preoperative spinopelvic alignment, LL and SS in the standing position were significantly smaller in the DiLL(+) group than in the DiLL(−) group, and PI − LL was significantly higher in the DiLL(+) group than in the DiLL(−) group. There was no difference in the clinical outcomes 3 months postoperatively, but low-back pain, especially in the sitting position, was significantly higher in the DiLL(+) group 2 years postoperatively. DiLL was associated with low-back pain in the sitting position, which was likely to persist in the DiLL(+) group postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS We evaluated the relationship between DiLL and spinal sagittal alignment and the influence of DiLL on postoperative outcomes in patients with LSS. DiLL was strongly correlated with PI − LL, and in the DiLL(+) group, postoperative low-back pain relapsed. DiLL can be useful as a new spinal alignment evaluation method that supports the conventional spinal sagittal alignment evaluation.

Introduction Preoperative factors that predict postoperative restoration of lumbar lordosis (LL) are not well understood. To investigate whether preoperative postural correction of LL, sagittal malalignment, or lumbar flexibility are associated with the postoperative restoration of LL in patients treated with a single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), a retrospective cohort study was conducted. Methods We enrolled 104 patients (mean age: 67.5±10.7 years old; 47 men and 57 women) with lumbar degenerative diseases treated with a single-level TLIF. The pre- and postoperative LL were examined using lateral radiographs in the standing position and computed tomography (CT) images in the supine position. The correlation between postoperative LL restoration and preoperative postural correction of LL (difference in LL between the standing and supine positions: D-LL), sagittal imbalance (pelvic incidence minus LL: PI-LL), and lumbar flexibility (difference in LL between the flexion and extension postures) were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the D-LL (D-LL≥0° and D-LL<0°). The rates of postoperative LL restoration (postoperative LL-preoperative LL in standing) were compared between the two groups. Results Multiple regression analysis performed after adjustment for age, gender, body mass index, and cage angle revealed that postoperative LL restoration was significantly correlated with D-LL (p<0.001), but not with PI-LL, and lumbar flexibility. Patients with a preoperative D-LL≥0° showed a significantly greater increase of LL after TLIF (7.1°±11.2°) than those with D-LL<0° (1.4°±6.6°) (p=0.003). Conclusions A preoperative evaluation of a lateral radiograph or CT taken in the supine position is useful in predicting postoperative improvement of sagittal alignment. Postoperative improvement of sagittal spinopelvic alignment would be expected when LL is corrected in the supine position preoperatively. Surgeons should pay attention to the postural correction of LL when performing short-segment fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative disease with sagittal malalignment.