A CONSORT-compliant article

The effect on degenerative thoracolumbar kyphosis (DTLK) after short-segment instrument for lumbar spinal stenosis syndrome (LSS) remains controversial. Based on the biomechanics and compensatory of the global spino-pelvic alignment, it was assumed that the interference on the lumbar spine, instead of the thoracolumbar segment, could still make a difference on the proximal spine. To explore whether DTLK could improve with only surgery for LSS and identify influencing factors on postoperative TLK. The study was performed from January 2016 to December 2018. Sixty-nine participants (25male) diagnosed LSSwith DTLKwere enrolled and surgery was only for LSS. Radiological parameters included TLK, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, and osteoporosis. Clinical outcomes were visual analogue scale and Oswestry disability index. According to lower instrumented vertebrae (LIV) on L5 or S1, inter-group comparisons were performed between LIV on L5 (L5 group) and S1 (S1 group). Demographics were well-matched between L5 and S1 group with a mean follow-up of 24.3±12.1 (m). TLK improved with a mean of 16.2±7.6 (°) (P< .001). There was no significance on radiological and clinical parameters between L5 and S1 groups except for a larger pelvic tilt in S1 group (P= .046). Visual analogue scale (P= .787) and Oswestry disability index (P= .530) were both indifferent between normal TLK and DTLK at last (P> .05). Postoperative TLK was affected by osteoporosis and sacral slope, the latter was dominated by pelvic incidence and pelvic rotation. Osteoporosis was the risk factor for TLK correction (P= .001, odd risk=9.58). DTLK decreased if instrument only performed for LSS, where TLK and clinical outcomes are comparably affected whether L5 or S1 is selected as LIV. This study supplements the compensatory mechanism of spino-pelvic alignment, especially for cases with severe osteoporosis. Abbreviations: BMI= bodymass index, DTLK= degenerative thoracolumbar kyphosis, LIV= lower instrumented vertebrae, LL= lumbar lordosis, LSS = lumbar spinal stenosis syndrome, ODI = Oswestry disability index, PI = pelvic incidence, PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PT = pelvic tilt, SS = sacral slope, TK = thoracic kyphosis, VAS = visual analogue scale.

[1]  A. Nussler,et al.  Feasibility of Cell Lines for In Vitro Co-Cultures Models for Bone Metabolism , 2020 .

[2]  F. Schwab,et al.  The Impact of Adult Thoracolumbar Spinal Deformities on Standing to Sitting Regional and Segmental Reciprocal Alignment , 2019, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[3]  L. Lenke,et al.  Treatment of adult thoracolumbar spinal deformity: past, present, and future. , 2019, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[4]  D. Skaggs,et al.  Superior Extension of Upper Instrumented Vertebrae in Distraction-based Surgery: A Surrogate for Clinically Significant Proximal Junctional Kyphosis. , 2019, Spine deformity.

[5]  Akimasa Yasuda,et al.  Impact of decompression surgery without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis on sagittal spinopelvic alignment: minimum 2-year follow-up. , 2019, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[6]  D. Togawa,et al.  The Effect of Paravertebral Muscle on the Maintenance of Upright Posture in Patients With Adult Spinal Deformity , 2019, Spine deformity.

[7]  H. Dimai,et al.  Assessing the effects of long-term osteoporosis treatment by using conventional spine radiographs: results from a pilot study in a sub-cohort of a large randomized controlled trial , 2018, Skeletal Radiology.

[8]  K. Mao,et al.  Precision Treatment of Adult Lumbar Degenerative Scoliosis Complicated by Lumbar Stenosis with the Use of Selective Nerve Root Block. , 2018, World neurosurgery.

[9]  P. Lytsy,et al.  P in the right place: Revisiting the evidential value of P‐values , 2018, Journal of evidence-based medicine.

[10]  R. Grunert,et al.  Pelvic orthosis effects on posterior pelvis kinematics An in-vitro biomechanical study , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Karina D. Torralba,et al.  Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Older Adults. , 2018, Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America.

[12]  L. Metz,et al.  Preventing Pseudoarthrosis and Proximal Junctional Kyphosis: How to Deal with the Osteoporotic Spine. , 2018, Neurosurgery clinics of North America.

[13]  M. Aebi,et al.  Focal disorders of the spine with compensatory deformities: how to define them , 2018, European Spine Journal.

[14]  Osahiko Tsuji,et al.  Low Bone-Mineral Density Is a Significant Risk for Proximal Junctional Failure After Surgical Correction of Adult Spinal Deformity: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis , 2017, Spine.

[15]  C. Paulino,et al.  Prevalence and risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis , 2018 .

[16]  P. Vajkoczy,et al.  The sagittal spinal profile type: a principal precondition for surgical decision making in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2017, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[17]  T. Goh,et al.  Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of lumbar degenerative kyphosis , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[18]  C. Chung,et al.  Sagittal imbalance in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and outcomes after simple decompression surgery. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[19]  M. Grevitt,et al.  The natural history of thoracolumbar kyphosis in achondroplasia , 2019, European Spine Journal.

[20]  Zhongqiang Chen,et al.  Posterior corrective surgery for moderate to severe focal kyphosis in the thoracolumbar spine: 57 cases with minimum 3 years follow-up , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[21]  D. Togawa,et al.  Lumbosacral Junctional Failures After Long Spinal Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity—Which Vertebra Is the Preferred Distal Instrumented Vertebra? , 2016, Spine deformity.

[22]  E. Carragee,et al.  Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 2016, Spine.

[23]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  Adult Spinal Deformity: Epidemiology, Health Impact, Evaluation, and Management , 2016, Spine deformity.

[24]  Y. Toyama,et al.  Impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcomes after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis without coronal imbalance. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[25]  N. Kawamura,et al.  Radiological Improvements in Global Sagittal Alignment After Lumbar Decompression Without Fusion , 2015, Spine.

[26]  M. Hongo,et al.  Improvement of spinal alignment and quality of life after corrective surgery for spinal kyphosis in patients with osteoporosis: a comparative study with non-operated patients , 2015, Osteoporosis International.

[27]  J. Villafañe,et al.  Anterior column realignment from a lateral approach for the treatment of severe sagittal imbalance: a retrospective radiographic study , 2015, European Spine Journal.

[28]  S. Kim,et al.  Comparison of Sagittal Spinopelvic Alignment between Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Degenerative Spinal Stenosis , 2014, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.

[29]  Munish C. Gupta,et al.  Complications and intercenter variability of three-column osteotomies for spinal deformity surgery: a retrospective review of 423 patients. , 2014, Neurosurgical focus.

[30]  S. Jeon,et al.  The result of S1 double screw fixation in patients not suited for L4 and/or L5 pedicle screw insertion , 2014, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[31]  P. Roussouly,et al.  Compensatory mechanisms contributing to keep the sagittal balance of the spine , 2013, European Spine Journal.

[32]  Ashish Patel,et al.  Pelvic Tilt and Truncal Inclination: Two Key Radiographic Parameters in the Setting of Adults With Spinal Deformity , 2009, Spine.