Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Optimal Pelvic Incidence Minus Lumbar Lordosis Mismatch after Long Posterior Instrumentation and Fusion for Adult Degenerative Scoliosis

2017; Wiley; Volume: 9; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/os.12343

1757-7861

Haocong Zhang, Zifang Zhang, Zhaohan Wang, Jun‐yao Cheng, Yuan-Shao Wu, Yi‐ming Fan, Tian‐hao Wang, Zheng Wang,

Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

Objective To evaluate the influence of S coliosis R esearch S ociety (SRS) ‐ S chwab sagittal modifiers of pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch ( PI‐LL ) on clinical outcomes for adult degenerative scoliosis ( ADS ) after long posterior instrumentation and fusion. Methods This was a single‐institute, retrospective study. From 2012 to 2014, 44 patients with ADS who underwent posterior instrumentation and fusion treatment were reviewed. Radiological evaluations were investigated by standing whole spine (posteroanterior and lateral views) X ‐ray and all radiological measurements, including C obb’s angle, LL , PI , and the grading of vertebral rotation, were performed by two experienced surgeons who were blind to the operations. The patients were divided into three groups based on postoperative PI‐LL and the classification of the SRS ‐ S chwab: 0 grade PI‐LL (<10°, n = 13); + grade PI‐LL (10°–20°, n = 19); and ++ grade PI‐LL (>20°, n = 12). The clinical outcomes were assessed according to J apanese O rthopaedic A ssociation ( JOA ) score, O swestry D isability I ndex ( ODI ), V isual A nalog S cale ( VAS ), L umbar S tiffness D isability I ndex ( LSDI ), and complications. Other characteristic data of patients were also collected, including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, complications, number of fusion levels, and number of decompressions. Results The mean operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were 284.5 ± 30.2 min, 1040.5 ± 1207.6 mL, and 14.5 ± 1.9 day. At the last follow‐up (2.6 ± 0.6 years), the radiological and functional parameters, except the grading of vertebral rotation, were all significantly improved in comparison with preoperative results ( P < 0.05), but it was obvious that an ideal PI‐LL (≤10°) was not achieved in some patients. Significant differences were only observed among the three groups in the ODI and LSDI . Patients with + grade PI‐LL seemed to have the best surgical outcome compared to those with 0 and ++ grade PI‐LL , with the lowest ODI score (+ grade vs 0 grade, 17.3 ± 4.9 vs 26.0 ± 5.4; + grade vs ++ grade, 17.3 ± 4.9 vs 32.4 ± 7.3; P < 0.05) and lower LSDI (+ grade vs 0 grade, 1.6 ± 1.0 vs 3.5 ± 0.5, P < 0.05; + grade vs ++ grade, 1.6 ± 1.0 vs 0.6 ± 0.5, P > 0.05). A P earson correlation analysis further demonstrated that LSDI was negatively associated with PI‐LL . Furthermore, the incidence rate of postoperative complications was lower in patients with + grade PI‐LL (1/19, 5.26%) than that in patients with 0 (2/13, 15.4%) and ++ grade PI‐LL (3/12, 25%). Conclusion Our present study suggest that the ideal PI‐LL may be between 10° and 20° in ADS patients after long posterior instrumentation and fusion.