COMPARISON OF THE USE OF PEDICLE SUBTRACTION OSTEOTOMY (PSO) IN PRIMARY AND REVISION OPERATIONS

Purpose of study: to evaluate clinical and roentgenologic results of the use of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) in primary and revision operations to determine the feasibility of radical spinal sagittal imbalance correction at primary surgical intervention.Patients and methods. Retrospective review of 42 patients (30 men and 12 women, mean age — 58.5 years) with rigid spinal deformities who underwent PSO was performed. Revision interventions (group R) were performed in 23 cases, primary (group P) — in 19 cases. The comparative analysis of spino-pelvic parameters and global spine balance, demographic indices, volume of intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgical intervention, complications in the late postoperative period and quality-of-life indices by SRS-22 and ODI scores was performed. Results. Minimum follow up period was 12 months. Osteotomy was more often performed at L3 level. No differences in the extent of fixation, duration of surgical intervention and degree of segmental correction were detected. The average blood loss was significantly lower in group P (p0.05). Analysis of the late postoperative period changes in roentgenologic parameters showed statistically significant differences for the lumbar lordosis index as well as inconsistency between the lumbar lordosis and pelvic index that were better in group P. Quality of life increased significantly in both groups with the only statistically significant difference in ODI that was better in group P. Serious complications were observed in 47.8 and 38.6% of cases in group R and group P, respectively (p0.05). Revision interventions were required in 26.1% of cases in group R and in 15.8% — in group P. Conclusion. In primary surgical interventions use of PSO technique enables to correct global spinal sagittal balance more effectively. Its use in primary interventions ensures lower volume of intraoperative blood loss as well as lower risk of pseudarthrosis formation and neurologic disorders development.

[1]  C. Ames,et al.  Does prior spine surgery or instrumentation affect surgical outcomes following 3-column osteotomy for correction of thoracolumbar deformities? , 2017, Neurosurgical focus.

[2]  Jun S. Kim,et al.  Beyond Pelvic Incidence–Lumbar Lordosis Mismatch: The Importance of Assessing the Entire Spine to Achieve Global Sagittal Alignment , 2017, Global spine journal.

[3]  Munish C. Gupta,et al.  Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy in the Revision Versus Primary Adult Spinal Deformity Patient: Is There a Difference in Correction and Complications? , 2015, Spine.

[4]  V. Lafage,et al.  Primary Versus Revision Surgery in the Setting of Adult Spinal Deformity: A Nationwide Study on 10,912 Patients , 2015, Spine.

[5]  L. Lenke,et al.  Risk Factors for and Assessment of Symptomatic Pseudarthrosis After Lumbar Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy in Adult Spinal Deformity , 2014, Spine.

[6]  F. Schwab,et al.  Osteotomies in the treatment of spinal deformities: indications, classification, and surgical planning , 2014, European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.

[7]  Michael Chang,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Complications in Patients With Degenerative Scoliosis Undergoing Primary Versus Revision Surgery , 2014, Spine.

[8]  Michael Chang,et al.  Revision Spinal Fusion in Patients Older Than 75: Is it Worth the Risks? , 2014, Spine.

[9]  Amit Jain,et al.  Three-Column Osteotomies in the Treatment of Spinal Deformity in Adult Patients 60 Years Old and Older: Outcome and Complications , 2013, Spine.

[10]  Munish C. Gupta,et al.  Spinal osteotomies for rigid deformities. , 2013, Neurosurgery clinics of North America.

[11]  Heather N. Watson,et al.  Infection risk for primary and revision instrumented lumbar spine fusion in the Medicare population. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[12]  O. Boachie-Adjei,et al.  Sagittal realignment failures following pedicle subtraction osteotomy surgery: are we doing enough?: Clinical article. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[13]  Munish C. Gupta,et al.  Risk factors for major peri-operative complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: a multi-center review of 953 consecutive patients , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[14]  Samuel K. Cho,et al.  Major Complications in Revision Adult Deformity Surgery: Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes With 2- to 7-Year Follow-up , 2012, Spine.

[15]  Samuel K. Cho,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcome and Complications in Primary Versus Revision Adult Scoliosis Surgery , 2012, Spine.

[16]  R. Hedlund.  Pedicle subtraction osteotomy in flat back syndrome 38 years after Harrington instrumentation for AIS , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[17]  D. Drazin,et al.  Complications and outcomes after spinal deformity surgery in the elderly: review of the existing literature and future directions. , 2011, Neurosurgical focus.

[18]  Ed Soil.  Сведения об авторах: Шамраев Александр Владимирович, кандидат биологических наук, доцент кафедры общей биологии Оренбургского государственного университета Гончарова Ольга Николаевна, соискатель кафедры экологии, общей биологии и МПБД , 2011 .

[19]  L. Lenke,et al.  Changes in Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes With Primary Treatment Adult Spinal Deformity Surgeries From Two Years to Three- to Five-Years Follow-up , 2010, Spine.

[20]  Guoan Li,et al.  Adult Scoliosis in Patients Over Sixty-Five Years of Age: Outcomes of Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment at a Minimum Two-Year Follow-up , 2009, Spine.

[21]  James D. Schwender,et al.  Perioperative Complications in Revision Anterior Lumbar Spine Surgery: Incidence and Risk Factors , 2009, Spine.

[22]  G. Chiara,et al.  Mesolimbic dopamine responsiveness to food conditioned stimuli after instrumental conditioning paradigm , 2009 .

[23]  Wafa Skalli,et al.  Standing Balance and Sagittal Plane Spinal Deformity: Analysis of Spinopelvic and Gravity Line Parameters , 2008, Spine.

[24]  J. Buchowski,et al.  Neurologic Complications of Lumbar Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy: A 10-Year Assessment , 2007, Spine.

[25]  L. Lenke,et al.  Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Complications and Outcomes in Patients Over Age 60 , 2007, Spine.

[26]  K. Bridwell.  Decision Making Regarding Smith-Petersen vs. Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy vs. Vertebral Column Resection for Spinal Deformity , 2006, Spine.

[27]  L. Lenke,et al.  Comparison of Smith-Petersen Versus Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for the Correction of Fixed Sagittal Imbalance , 2005, Spine.

[28]  L. Lenke,et al.  Complications and Outcomes of Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomies for Fixed Sagittal Imbalance , 2003, Spine.

[29]  L. Lenke,et al.  Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for the Treatment of Fixed Sagittal Imbalance , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[30]  B. V. van Royen,et al.  Lumbar osteotomy for correction of thoracolumbar kyphotic deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. A structured review of three methods of treatment , 1999, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[31]  E. Thomasen.  Vertebral osteotomy for correction of kyphosis in ankylosing spondylitis. , 1985, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.