Defining modern iatrogenic flatback syndrome: examination of segmental lordosis in short lumbar fusion patients undergoing thoracolumbar deformity correction
- PMID: 39443371
- DOI: 10.1007/s00586-024-08531-z
Defining modern iatrogenic flatback syndrome: examination of segmental lordosis in short lumbar fusion patients undergoing thoracolumbar deformity correction
Abstract
Purpose: Understanding the mechanism and extent of preoperative deformity in revision procedures may provide data to prevent future failures in lumbar spinal fusion patients.
Methods: ASD patients without prior spine surgery (PRIMARY) and with prior short (SHORT) and long (LONG) fusions were included. SHORT patients were stratified into modes of failure: implant, junctional, malalignment, and neurologic. Baseline demographics, spinopelvic alignment, offset from alignment targets, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared across PRIMARY and SHORT cohorts. Segmental lordosis analyses, assessing under-, match, or over-correction to segmental and global lordosis targets, were performed by SRS-Schwab coronal curve type and construct length.
Results: Among 785 patients, 430 (55%) were PRIMARY and 355 (45%) were revisions. Revision procedures included 181 (23%) LONG and 174 (22%) SHORT corrections. SHORT modes of failure included 27% implant, 40% junctional, 73% malalignment, and/or 28% neurologic. SHORT patients were older, frailer, and had worse baseline deformity (PT, PI-LL, SVA) and PROMs (NRS, ODI, VR-12, SRS-22) compared to primary patients (p < 0.001). Segmental lordosis analysis identified 93%, 88%, and 62% undercorrected patients at LL, L1-L4, and L4-S1, respectively. SHORT patients more often underwent 3-column osteotomies (30% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and had higher ISSG Surgical Invasiveness Score (87.8 vs. 78.3, p = 0.006).
Conclusions: Nearly half of adult spinal deformity surgeries were revision fusions. Revision short fusions were associated with sagittal malalignment, often due to undercorrection of segmental lordosis goals, and frequently required more invasive procedures. Further initiatives to optimize alignment in lumbar fusions are needed to avoid costly and invasive deformity corrections.
Level of evidence: IV: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.
Keywords: Adult spinal deformity; Mode of failure; Revision; Sagittal malalignment; Segmental lordosis.
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to this paper.
References
-
- Diebo BG, Shah NV, Boachie-Adjei O et al (2019) Adult spinal deformity. Lancet 394(10193):160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31125-0 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Kim HJ, Yang JH, Chang DG et al (2020) Adult spinal deformity: current concepts and decision-making strategies for management. Asian Spine J 14(6):886–897. https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0568 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Akıntürk N, Zileli M, Yaman O (2022) Complications of adult spinal deformity surgery: a literature review. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 13(1):17–26. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_159_21 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Mok JM, Cloyd JM, Bradford DS, Hu SS, Deviren V, Smith JA, Tay B, Berven SH (2009) Reoperation after primary fusion for adult spinal deformity: rate, reason, and timing. Spine 34(8):832–839. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819f2080 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS et al (2013) Reoperation rates and impact on outcome in a large, prospective, multicenter, adult spinal deformity database: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19(4):464–470. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.7.SPINE12901 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous