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
. 2014 Feb 1;39(3):E166-73.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000073.

Sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters after lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative scoliosis: a case-control study

Affiliations

Sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters after lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative scoliosis: a case-control study

Yaser M K Baghdadi et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). .

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective matched-cohort analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the change in radiographical parameters in patients undergoing interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation compared with posterior spine fusion (PSF) alone for degenerative scoliosis.

Summary of background data: Little is known about the effect of lateral interbody fusion (LIF) on sagittal plane correction in the setting of degenerative scoliosis. We performed a retrospective study to investigate these changes compared with PSF.

Methods: Between 1997 and 2011, 33 patients had LIF at 181 levels between T8 and L5 vertebrae for the treatment of degenerative scoliosis (mean; 5 ± 2 levels). Of those, 23 patients had additional anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at 37 levels between L4 and S1 vertebrae (mean; 1.6 ± 0.5 levels). A 1:1 matched control of patients who underwent PSF was performed. Patients were matched by age, sex, and diagnosis. Clinical and radiographical data were collected and compared between the matched cohorts.

Results: Lumbar lordosis (LL) was significantly restored in the LIF ± ALIF compared with PSF cohort (44° ± 14° vs. 36° ± 15°, P = 0.02). The segmental LL over the 102 LIF levels significantly improved from 12°± 10° to 21°± 13° postoperatively (P < 0.0001). However, the change over the 37 ALIF levels was not significant (from 30° ± 15° to 29° ± 9°, P = 0.8). Sagittal plane alignment was improved in the LIF ± ALIF compared with PSF cohort and trended toward but did not reach significance (3.8 ± 3.2 cm vs. 6.2 ± 5.7 cm, P = 0.09). Sacral slope was significantly higher in the LIF ± ALIF compared with PSF cohort (33° ± 11° vs. 28° ± 10°, P = 0.03). Pelvic tilt was lower in the LIF ± ALIF compared with PSF cohort and trended toward but did not reach significance (22° ± 10° vs. 26° ± 10°, P = 0.08).

Conclusion: LL and sacral slope had mildly but statistically improved in the interbody fusion cohort compared with PSF cohort. Sagittal alignment and pelvic tilt trended toward but did not reach statistical significance. Segmental LL was improved at LIF levels more than at ALIF levels.

Level of evidence: 3.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preoperative and postoperative full–length coronal and sagittal standing radiographs for a 66–year old male patient diagnosed with progressive degenerative scoliosis. He had a surgical history of posterior in situ fusion (L4–Sacrum). He underwent circumferential spine surgery with a total of eight lateral interbody fusion levels and percutaneous posterior fusion using pedicle screws (T8–Sacrum).
Coronal Cobb angle (°)SVALLPTSSPI
Preoperative15°13 cm43°33°34°67°
Postoperative4.1 cm57°29°35°64°
Sagittal Vertical Alignment (SVA), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS), and Pelvic Incidence (PI).
Figure 1
Figure 1
Preoperative and postoperative full–length coronal and sagittal standing radiographs for a 66–year old male patient diagnosed with progressive degenerative scoliosis. He had a surgical history of posterior in situ fusion (L4–Sacrum). He underwent circumferential spine surgery with a total of eight lateral interbody fusion levels and percutaneous posterior fusion using pedicle screws (T8–Sacrum).
Coronal Cobb angle (°)SVALLPTSSPI
Preoperative15°13 cm43°33°34°67°
Postoperative4.1 cm57°29°35°64°
Sagittal Vertical Alignment (SVA), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS), and Pelvic Incidence (PI).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The mean and upper standard deviation for preoperative and postoperative radiographical parameters of the LIF ± ALIF cohort and PSF cohort were shown. P values of paired t tests were also presented. LIF indicates lateral interbody fusion; ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; PSF, posterior spine fusion.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The mean and upper standard deviation for preoperative and postoperative radiographical parameters of the LIF ± ALIF cohort and PSF cohort were shown. P values of paired t tests were also presented. LIF indicates lateral interbody fusion; ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; PSF, posterior spine fusion.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kotwal S, Pumberger M, Hughes A, et al. Degenerative scoliosis: a review. HSS J. 2011;7:257–64. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sasso RC, Best NM, Mummaneni PV, et al. Analysis of operative complications in a series of 471 anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:670–4. - PubMed
    1. Crandall DG, Revella J. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion as an adjunct to posterior instrumented correction of degenerative lumbar scoliosis: three year clinical and radiographic outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:2126–33. - PubMed
    1. Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:379–86. - PubMed
    1. Pavlov PW, Meijers H, van Limbeek J, et al. Good outcome and restoration of lordosis after anterior lumbar interbody fusion with additional posterior fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:1893–9. discussion 900. - PubMed

Publication types