Spinal sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis; a comparative study

Farrokhi, Majid Reza; Haghnegahdar, Ali; Rezaee, Hamid; Rad, Mohammad Reza Sharifi

doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.10.020

Cited by 33 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because an improvement in LBP and functional ODI in patients with LSS and degenerative instability is very important, for patients with intolerable pain who fail conservative therapies and minimally invasive treatments, surgery is indicated (32,33). Instrumentassisted PLF and instrument-assisted PLIF are the 2 most common techniques for the surgical treatment of LSS and degenerative instability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is believed that the surgical planning should be based on the sagittal alignment (44,52). Farrokhi et al (33) emphasized that it is necessary to evaluate the sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters completely before the surgery in the patients with LSS. However, few studies have quantitatively measured the spinal sagittal parameters in patients with LSS or degenerative lumbar spine instability (33,53).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical Outcomes of Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Instability

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Degenerative lumbar spine disease can lead to lumbar spine instability. Lumbar spine instability is defined as an abnormal response to applied loads characterized kinematically by abnormal movement in the motion segment beyond normal constraints. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) typically present with low back pain (LBP), cramping, cauda equine syndrome, and signs of nerve root compression associated by weakness, numbness and tingling in their legs that are worsened with standing and walking. This degenerative condition severely restricts function, walking ability, and quality of life (QOL). Objectives: This study aims to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with posterior instrumentation in the treatment of LSS and degenerative instability. Study Design: A randomized, prospective, controlled clinical study. Methods: In this prospective study, 88 patients with LSS and degenerative instability were randomly allocated to one of 2 groups: PLF (Group I) or PLIF (Group II). Primary outcomes were the control of LBP and radicular pain, evaluated with visual analog scale (VAS), the improvement of QOL assessed by the Oswestry disability index (ODI) scale, and measurement of fusion rate, Cobb angle, spinal sagittal balance, and modic changes in the 2 groups. Results: At 24 months postoperatively, the mean reduction in VAS scores in Group I was more than in Group II (5.67 vs. 5.48, respectively) and the patients in Group I had more improvement in the ODI score than the patients in Group II (42.75 vs. 40.94, respectively). There was a statistically significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative sagittal balance in the 2 groups. The mean Cobb angle changed significantly in the 2 groups. Limitations: There are few prospective studies of PLIF or PLF in patients with LSS and degenerative lumbar spine instability, and a limited number of studies which exists have examined the safety and outcome of each procedure without comparing it with other fusion techniques. Because most of the studies in the literature have been conducted in the patients with IS, we could not compare and contrast our findings with studies in patients with LSS and degenerative lumbar spine instability. In addition, although in our study the findings at a 24-month follow-up period showed that PLF was better than PLIF in these patients, there were some studies in which the authors reported that PLIF showed better clinical results than PLF at a 48-month followup period. So we suggest that rigorous controlled trials at longer follow-up periods should be undertaken in groups of patients with LSS and degenerative lumbar spine instability who undergo posterior decompression and instrumented fusion to help to determine the ultimate best fusion technique for these patients. Conclusion: PLF with posterior instrumentation provides better clinical outcomes and improvement in the LBP, radicular pain, and functional QOL, more correction of the Cobb angle, more restoration of sagittal alignment, more decrease in Modic type 1, and more increase in Modic type 0, despite the low fusion rate compared to PLIF. Key words: Lumbar spinal stenosis, degenerative instability, posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, low back pain, quality of life, cobb angle, fusion rate, mobic changes, sagittal balance

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Outcomes of Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Instability

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well known that pathogenesis and development of degenerative lumbar disease was biomechanical changes caused by sagittal unbalance. [25,26] The PI was an anatomic parameter which played a fundamental role in the sagittal balance and spinal degeneration. As a result, a higher PI implied a higher SS and LL, which might lead to higher shear forces at the lumbosacral junction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar degenerative disease after oblique lateral interbody fusion: sagittal spinopelvic alignment and its impact on low back pain

Zhang

Shen

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The objective of the retrospective study was to investigated the incidence and risk factors of low back pain (LBP) in patients with lumbar degenerative disease after single-level oblique lateral interbody fusion(OLIF).Methods: In this retrospective study, 120 patients who undergoing single-level OLIF to treat lumbar degenerative disease were recruited. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic parameters, including segmental lordosis(SL), lumbar lordosis(LL), disk height(DH), pelvic incidence(PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope(SS), thoracic kyphosis(TK), C7-sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Visual analog scale(VAS) for back and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index(ODI), were used to evaluate symptoms and quantify disability. All patients achieved at least two-year follow-up.Results: A total of 120 Patients who complained low back pain were apportioned to LBP group (n=38; VAS scores for back pain≥3) or Non-LBP group (n=82;VAS scores for back pain＜3). There was no difference in age(P=0.082), gender(P=0.425), body mass index(P=0.138), degenerative spondylolisthesis or lumbar spinal stenosis(P=0.529) surgical level(P=0.651), blood Loss (P=0.889) and operative time(P=0.731) between the groups. In both groups, the ODI and VAS scores for back pain and leg pain were significantly improved at the final follow-up compared to the preoperative scores (P=0.003). Furthermore, except for the LBP (P=0.000), there were no significant differences in these scores between the two groups at the final follow-up (P > 0.05). According to the radiographic parameters, in Non-LBP group, the LL, SL, DH, TK and SS had all significantly improved; PT and C7-SVA significantly decreased at the final follow-up compared to the preoperative values. The DH in both groups had significantly improved, no significant difference was found(P=0.325). In the final follow-up, LL, PI-LL, PT and C7-SVA in Non-LBP group had more improvements compared to the LBP group (P＜0.05) . Multivariate analysis showed that PT, PI-LL and C7-SVA were identified as significant risk factors for LBP after OLIF.Conclusion: The clinical outcomes of OLIF for single-level lumbar degenerative disease were satisfactory. Our findings showed that PT, PI-LL mismatch and C7-SVA had the greatest impact on the incidence of LBP. Therefore, patients with appropriate decreased PT, improved C7-SVA and PI-LL match experienced less low back pain.

show abstract

“…It has been hypothesized that sagittal malalignment is a risk factor strongly correlated with LBP in patients after surgery. [25,26] Many studies have reported that increased SS and LL after posterior lumbar surgery may lead to better clinical outcomes and less LBP. Failure to achieve proper sagittal balance results in compensatory mechanisms such as decreased SL and LL, and increased PT, which have adverse effects on the back muscles and eventually lead to LBP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar degenerative disease after oblique lateral interbody fusion:sagittal spinopelvic alignment and its impact on low back pain

Zhang

Shen

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We determined the incidence and risk factors of low back pain (LBP) in patients with lumbar degenerative disease after single-level oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 120 lumbar degenerative disease patients who underwent single-level OLIF. We compared preoperative and postoperative radiographic parameters, including segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), disk height (DH), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), thoracic kyphosis (TK), C7-sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain. All patients were followed up for at least 2 years. Results: Thirty-eight patients had postoperative LBP (VAS score for back pain ≥ 3; LBP group); the remaining 82 patients were in the non-LBP group. Age (P = 0.082), gender (P = 0.425), body mass index (P = 0.138), diagnosis (degenerative spondylolisthesis vs. lumbar spinal stenosis; P = 0.529), surgical level (P = 0.651), blood loss (P = 0.889), and operative time (P = 0.731) did not differ between the groups. In both groups, the ODI and VAS scores for back pain and leg pain significantly improved at the final follow-up compared to the preoperative scores (P = 0.003). Except for the VAS score for back pain (P = 0.000), none of the scores significantly differed between the two groups at the final follow-up (P > 0.05). In the non-LBP group, LL, SL, DH, TK, and SS significantly improved, while PT and C7-SVA significantly decreased at the final follow-up as compared to the preoperative values. In both groups, DH significantly improved postoperatively, with no significant between-group difference (P = 0.325). At the final follow-up, LL, PI-LL mismatch, PT, and C7-SVA showed significantly greater improvement in the non-LBP group than in the LBP group (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified PT, PI-LL mismatch, and C7-SVA as significant risk factors for LBP after OLIF. Conclusion: OLIF for single-level lumbar degenerative disease had satisfactory clinical outcomes. PT, PI-LL mismatch, and C7-SVA were significant risk factors for postoperative LBP. Patients with appropriately decreased PT, improved C7-SVA, and PI-LL match experienced less LBP.

show abstract

Spinal sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis; a comparative study

Cited by 33 publications

References 44 publications

Clinical Outcomes of Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Instability

Clinical Outcomes of Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Instability

Lumbar degenerative disease after oblique lateral interbody fusion: sagittal spinopelvic alignment and its impact on low back pain

Lumbar degenerative disease after oblique lateral interbody fusion:sagittal spinopelvic alignment and its impact on low back pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About