Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2008 May;17(5):650-6.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0615-z. Epub 2008 Feb 13.

Short fusion versus long fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Short fusion versus long fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis

Kyu-Jung Cho et al. Eur Spine J. 2008 May.

Abstract

The extent of fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis has not yet been determined. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of short fusion versus long fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Fifty patients (mean age 65.5 +/- 5.1 years) undergoing decompression and fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation were evaluated. Short fusion was defined as fusion within the deformity, not exceeding the end vertebra. Long fusion was defined as fusion extended above the upper end vertebra. The lower end vertebra was included in the fusion in all the patients. The short fusion group included 28 patients and the long fusion group included 22 patients. Patients' age and number of medical co-morbidities were similar in both the groups. The number of levels fused was 3.1 +/- 0.9 segments in the short fusion group and 6.5 +/- 1.5 in the long fusion group. Before surgery, the average Cobb angle was 16.3 degrees (range 11-28 degrees ) in the short fusion group and 21.7 degrees (range 12-33 degrees ) in the long fusion group. The correction of the Cobb angle averaged 39% in the short fusion group and 72% in the long fusion group with a statistical difference (P = 0.001). Coronal imbalance improved significantly in the long fusion group more than in the short fusion group (P = 0.03). The correction of lateral listhesis was better in the long fusion group (P = 0.02). However, there was no difference in the correction of lumbar lordosis and sagittal imbalance between the two groups. Ten of the 50 patients had additional posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5 or L5-S1. The interbody fusion had a positive influence in improving lumbar lordosis, but was ineffective at restoring sagittal imbalance. Early perioperative complications were likely to develop in the long fusion group. Late complications included adjacent segment disease, loosening of screws, and pseudarthrosis. Adjacent segment disease developed in ten patients in the short fusion group, and in five patients in the long fusion group. In the short fusion group, adjacent segment disease occurred proximally in all of the ten patients. Loosening of distal screws developed in three patients, and pseudarthrosis at L5-S1 in one patient in the long fusion group. Reoperation was performed in four patients in the long fusion group and three patients in the short fusion group. In conclusion, short fusion is sufficient for patients with small Cobb angle and good spinal balance. For patients with severe Cobb angle and rotatory subluxation, long fusion should be carried out to minimize adjacent segment disease. For patients who have severe sagittal imbalance, spinal osteotomy is an alternative technique to be considered. As long fusion is likely to increase early perioperative complications, great care should be taken for high-risk patients to avoid complications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a Preoperative coronal and sagittal lumbar radiographs showing degenerative lumbar scoliosis. The Cobb angle was 17° and lumbar lordosis was 9°. b Coronal and sagittal lumbar radiographs 3 years after surgery. With limited short fusion and posterior instrumentation, both parameters were not changed
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Standing long cassette coronal and sagittal radiographs before surgery. The Cobb angle was 35° and lumbar lordosis was 54°. b Standing long cassette coronal and sagittal radiographs 2 years after long fusion and instrumentation with additional posterior interbody fusion at L4-5. The Cobb angle improved from 35 to 2°, and lumbar lordosis changed from 54 to 43°

References

    1. Aebi M. The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:925–948. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1053-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bradford DS, Tay DK, Hu SS. Adult scoliosis: operative management, complications, and outcomes. Spine. 1999;24:2617–2629. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199912150-00009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bridwell KH, Edwards CC, Lenke LG. The pros and cons to saving the L5-S1 motion segment in a long scoliosis fusion construct. Spine. 2003;28:S234–S242. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000092462.45111.27. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR, et al. Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2089–2092. - PubMed
    1. Daffner SD, Vaccaro A. Adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Am J Orthop. 2003;2:77–82. - PubMed

Publication types