Comparative Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Osteotomies for the Correction of Sagittal Plane Spinal Deformity in Adults

Study Design. A retrospective review. Objective. To compare the radiographical and clinical profiles between 2 surgical approaches for the correction of sagittal plane spinal deformity. Summary of Background Data. Sagittal plane decompensation is the radiographical parameter that carries the greatest impact on adverse outcomes. Surgical correction methods are heterogeneous, and opposing views pervade the spine community in consideration of the most effective approach and techniques to achieve correction. Methods. A total of 33 cases with sagittal spinal deformity were assessed according to their surgical approach, posterior only versus combined anteroposterior group. Comparison was based on the demographic data, and radiographical parameters included pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, sacral slope, lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, and sagittal vertical axis. Results. Twenty two subjects were identified for the posterior-only and 11 subjects for the anteroposterior group. Average age was 58.7 years in the posterior-only and 55.7 years for the combined approach. Preoperative mean sagittal vertical axis was 186.6 and 147.7 mm, for the posterior-only and combined approaches, respectively (P = 0.1). Preoperative mean pelvic tilt was 34.2° for the posterior-only and 36.9° for the combined approach group (P = 0.5). A greater operative time for the combined approach was significant, 535 versus 333 minutes for the posterior-only approach (P < 0.001). In the posterior-only group, 8 of 22 patients and 7 of 11 patients in the combined-approach cohort experienced a postoperative complication (P = 0.16). The average follow-up was 41.8 and 47.7 months for the posterior-only and combined approaches, respectively (P = 0.4). Conclusion. A posterior-only or combined surgical approach had comparable radiographical outcomes. Higher morbidity was significant in regard to operative time in the combined-approach group. Deciding on the approach best suited for achieving correction in the sagittal plane likely resides on the surgeon's experience and expertise.

[1]  J. Buchowski,et al.  Scoliosis Research Society—Schwab Adult Spinal Deformity Classification: A Validation Study , 2012, Spine.

[2]  F. Sánchez-Mariscal,et al.  Correlation of Radiographic and Functional Measurements in Patients Who Underwent Primary Scoliosis Surgery in Adult Age , 2012, Spine.

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

[4]  Ashish Patel,et al.  Sagittal Plane Considerations and the Pelvis in the Adult Patient , 2009, Spine.

[5]  J. Kostuik,et al.  Posterior Only Versus Combined Anterior and Posterior Approaches to Lumbar Scoliosis in Adults: A Radiographic Analysis , 2007, Spine.

[6]  B. Ilharreborde,et al.  Intra and inter-observer reliability of determining degree of pelvic incidence in high-grade spondylolisthesis using a computer assisted method , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[7]  W. Skalli,et al.  Validation of new clinical quantitative analysis software applicable in spine orthopaedic studies , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[8]  William Horton,et al.  The Impact of Positive Sagittal Balance in Adult Spinal Deformity , 2005, Spine.

[9]  William Horton,et al.  Correlation of Radiographic Parameters and Clinical Symptoms in Adult Scoliosis , 2005, Spine.

[10]  V. Deviren,et al.  Management of Fixed Sagittal Plane Deformity: Outcome of Combined Anterior and Posterior Surgery , 2003, Spine.

[11]  F. Schwab,et al.  Adult Scoliosis: A Quantitative Radiographic and Clinical Analysis , 2002, Spine.

[12]  R. Betz,et al.  Anterior Versus Posterior Instrumentation for the Correction of Thoracic Idiopathic Scoliosis , 2001, Spine.