Journal List > J Korean Soc Spine Surg > v.16(1) > 1035881

Lee, Soh, Jo, Kim, and Shin: Comparative Analysis of Surgical Options in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Kyphosis

Abstract

Study Design

A retrospective study

Objectives

To compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of three surgical methods

Summary of literature Review

There were many proposed surgical treatments for lumbar degenerative kyphosis but the best treatment is still controversial.

Materials and Methods

Thirty three patients (all female) had undergone surgery. The mean age at surgery was 61.2. The average follow-up period was 34.7 months. The patients were divided into three groups. Group A included 7 cases with a correction by a posterior osteotomy, Group B included 15 with a posterior correction without an osteotomy, and Group C included 11 with combined anterior-posterior surgery. The radiographic measurements of lumbar lordosis, upper lumbar lordosis, lower lumbar lordosis, and pelvic tilt were performed before surgery, after surgery, and at the final follow-up visit. The loss of correction, complication rates and the clinical results were also compared.

Results

Postoperative correction of the lumbar and lower lumbar lordosis were significantly higher in group A and C than group B. The correction of upper lumbar lordosis was significantly higher in group A than group C. On the final follow-up, there was no significant difference in the loss of correction and clinical results between the three groups. The number of cases with complications in groups A, B and C was 4 (57%), 2 (13.3%) and 2 (18.2%), respectively. Two patients in group A required additional surgery.

Conclusions

Groups A and C were more effective than posterior-only correction. There was no significant difference in the clinical results between the three groups but complication rate was higher in Group A than the other groups. Combined anterior and posterior surgery can be a safe and effective method for correction.

REFERENCES

01). Lee CS., Kim YT., Kim EG. Clinical study of lumbar degenerative kyphosis. J Korean Spine Surg. 1997. 4:27–35.
02). Aota Y., Kumano KO., Hirabayashi S. Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal disord. 1995. 8:464–473.
crossref
03). Gelb DE., Lenke LG., Bridwell KH., Blanke K., McEnery KW. An analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in 100 asymptomatic middle and older aged volunteers. Spine. 1995. 12:1351–1358.
crossref
04). Takemitsu Y., Harada Y., Iwahara T., Miyamoto M., Mitatake Y. Lumbar degenerative kyphosis: Clinical, radiologic and epidemiological study. Spine. 1988. 13:1317–1326.
05). Doherty JH. Complications of fusion in lumbar scoliosis. Proceedings of the scoliosis research society. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973. 55:438–445.
06). Moe JH., Denis F. The iatrogenic loss of lumbar lordosis. Orthop Trans. 1977. 1:131.
07). Aaro S., Ohlen G. The effect of Harrington instrumentation on sagittal configuration and mobility of the spine in scoliosis. Spine. 1983. 8:570–575.
08). Casey MP., Asher MA., Jacobs RR., Orrick JM. The effect of Harrington rod contouring on lumbar lordosis. Spine. 1987. 12:750–753.
crossref
09). LaGrone MO. Loss of lumbar lordosis. A complication of spinal fusion for scoliosis. Orthop Clin North Am. 1988. 9:383–393.
10). LaGrone MO., Bradford DS., Moe JH., Lonstein JE., Winter RB., Ogilvie JW. Treatment of symptomatic flat-back after spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988. 70:569–580.
crossref
11). Swank S., Lonstein JE., Moe JH., Winter RB., Bradford DS. Surgical treatment of adult scoliosis. A review of two hundred and twenty-two cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981. 63:268–287.
crossref
12). Swank SM., Mauri TM., Brown JC. The lumbar lordosis below Harrington instrumentation for scoliosis. Spine. 1990. 15:181–186.
crossref
13). Van Dam BE., Bradford DS., Lonstein JE., Moe JH., Ogilvie JW., Winter RB. Adult idiopathic scoliosis treated by posterior spinal fusion and Harrington instrumentation. Spine. 1987. 12:32–36.
crossref
14). Kim EH., Han SK., Kim HJ. A clinical analysis of surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative kyphosis. J Korean Spine Surg. 2001. 8:210–218.
crossref
15). Nakai O., Yamaura I., Kurosa Y, et al. Posterior stabilization for lumbar degenerative kyphosis: In situ fusion in maximum extension on Hall's frame. Proc 5th Int Conf Lumbar Fusion and Stabilization,. Tokyo, Springer-Verlag;1993. p. 135–149.
16). Kim EH., Kim SW. Anterior and posterior surgical treatment with wedged cage(Syncage) in lumbar degenerative kyphosis. J of Korean Spine Surg. 2003. 10:240–247.
17). Suk SI., Kim JH., Kim WJ, et al. Treatment of fixed lumbosacral kyphosis by posterior vertebral column resection. J of Korean Spine Surg. 1998. 33:367–374.

Fig. 1.
Radiographs of three operative groups (A) Posterior osteotomy, (B) Posterior surgery only, (C) Combined anterior and posterior surgery
jkss-16-8f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Radiographic measurements (A) Lumbar lordosis angle, (B) Upper lumbar lordosis angle, (C) Lower lumbar lordosis angle, (D) Pelvic tilt angle (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS)
jkss-16-8f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Changes of radiographic parameters (A) Lumbar lordosis angle, (B) Upper lumbar lordosis angle, (C) Lower lumbar lordosis angle, (D) Pelvic tilt angle. ∗p<0.05 by Kruskal-Wallis test
jkss-16-8f3.tif
Table 1.
Patients demographics and clinical data
Case No Age Sex Group Takemitsu Classification Operated level F/U (mo) VAS Clinical outcome Complications
Initial Final
1 58 F A 4 L2-S1 84 8 3 Excellent  
2 59 F A 2 T12-S1 18 8 5 Good  
3 53 F A 2 T12-S1 79 7 4 Poor Reoperation due to stenosis
4 62 F A 2 L2-S1 44 8 0 Poor Pseudarthrosis and metal failure
5 51 F A 2 L2-S1 51 7 0 Fair Dural tear, metal failure
6 74 F A 2 T12-S1 18 5 3 Good Recurrence of stooping
7 58 F A 3 T10-S1 62 7 2 Good S1 screw loosening
8 50 F B 2 T10-S1 75 5 0 Excellent Upper compression fracture, T9
9 57 F B 2 L3-S1 30 9 2 Fair Junctional kyphosis
10 60 F B 3 T11-L5 24 5 0 Excellent  
11 61 F B 3 T10-L5 15 3 3 Good  
12 62 F B 2 T11-S1 30 3 0 Fair  
13 66 F B 2 T12-S1 125 0 0 Good  
14 81 F B 2 T12-S1 12 0 0 Excellent Postoperative transient respiratory arrest
15 59 F B 3 L3-5 18 8 2 Excellent  
16 62 F B 1 L4-S1 97 0 0 Excellent  
17 62 F B 2 L2-S1 12 3 2 Good  
18 59 F B 1 L3-S1 13 8 2 Excellent  
19 65 F B 2 T12-S1 39 2 0 Good  
20 75 F B 1 T11-S1 36 7 3 Fair Pseudarthrosis, L5-S1
21 60 F B 3 L3-5 16 9 4 Good  
22 65 F B 2 T11-S1 12 8 2 Excellent  
23 45 F C 1 L2-5 114 7 3 Fair Recurrence of stooping
24 65 F C 1 L3-S1 45 7 2 Excellent  
25 64 F C 1 L4-S1 49 8 2 Good  
26 67 F C 3 T11-S1 41 7 3 Good  
27 64 F C 1 L2-S1 36 7 4 Excellent Vena cava injury, hypovolemia
28 63 F C 2 T10-S1 18 5 0 Good Upper compression fracture, T9
29 55 F C 2 L3-S1 21 5 0 Fair Reoperation due to L5 radiculopathy
30 56 F C 2 L3-S1 15 8 0 Excellent  
31 62 F C 3 T10-S1 12 8 0 Excellent  
32 54 F C 4 T10-S1 12 2 0 Excellent Peritoneal tear
33 65 F C 2 L3-S1 19 5 0 Excellent  

Group A: Posterior osteotomy, Group B: Posterior surgery only, Group C: Combined anterior & posterior surgery, F/U: follow-up, VAS: Visual analogue scale

Table 2.
Age and fused segments number of three operative methods
  Group A Group B Group C Total P value
Number of cases 7 15 11 33  
Age (Yr) 58.1 63.9 60 61.2 0.118
F/U periods (Mo) 53.9 34.2 34.7 39.2 0.097
Fused segments 5.4 4.9 4.7 4.9 0.825

Group A: Posterior osteotomy, Group B: Posterior surgery only, Group C: Combined anterior & posterior surgery

Table 3.
Summary of radiographic measurements
    Preop. Postop. Correction Final follow-up Loss of correction
Lumbar Lordosis Group A -5.8 32.3 38.0 17.4 14.900
  Group B 3.2 24.9 21.6 16.1 8.70
  Group C 8.1 40.4 32.3 28.6 11.800
  P value 0.094 0.006 0.025 00.257 0.194
Upper Lumbar Lordosis Group A -6.1 11.9 18.0 5.5 6.40
  Group B -0.3 5.3 5.6 0.4 4.90
  Group C 4.2 3.9 -0.3 3.7 0.20
  P value 0.111 0.177 0.022 0.670 0.214
Lower Lumbar Lordosis Group A -1.5 29.1 30.6 18.9 10.300
  Group B 1.9 19.2 17.4 15.0 4.20
  Group C 2.6 35.0 32.5 28.2 6.80
  P value 0.234 0.001 0.008 0.007 0.356
Pelvic Tilt Group A 45.9 26.4 19.5 34.10 7.70
  Group B 32.3 21.6 12.4 24.80 3.20
  Group C 41.8 23.2 19.2 33.50 10.4 0
  P value 0.070 0.588 0.289 0.137 0.070

Group A: Posterior osteotomy, Group B: Posterior surgery only, Group C: Combined anterior & posterior surgery

Table 4.
Comparison of radiographic parameters according to clinical outcome
    Number Preop. Postop. Correction Final follow-up Loss of correction
Lumbar Lordosis Excellent &Good 25 3.5 32.7 29.2 22.2 18.6
  Fair & Poor 8 0.0 29.1 29.1 15.6 13.5
  P value   0.636 0.550 0.918 0.522 0.918
Upper Lumbar Lordosi is Excellent &Good 25 -1.2 7.0 8.2 -3.7 2.6
  Fair & Poor 8 -3.0 4.8 1.8 -0.4 5.1
  P value   0.470 0.789 0.290 0.550 0.885
Lower Lumbar Lordosi is Excellent &Good 25 -2.7 28.0 25.3 21.7 4.6
  Fair & Poor 8 -3.3 23.3 26.5 16.1 7.1
  P value   0.236 0.420 0.918 0.272 0.853
Pelvic Tilt Excellent &Good 25 36.8 21.2 16.0 27.5 6.7
  Fair & Poor 8 44.9 29.9 17.6 34.0 6.8
  P value   0.162 0.081 0.885 0.190 0.550
TOOLS
Similar articles