Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Lumbar Lordosis Redistribution and Segmental Correction in Adult Spinal Deformity: Does it Matter?

  • International Spine Study Group (ISSG)
  • Brown University
  • Lenox Hill Hospital
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • University of Virginia
  • Scripps Clinic
  • Rush University
  • Kosair Children's Hospital
  • Washington University St. Louis
  • Southwest Scoliosis Center
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of Toronto
  • Denver International Spine Center
  • Spine Institute of Louisiana
  • New York University
  • Barrow Brain and Spine
  • Columbia University
  • University of Calgary
  • University of California at San Francisco
  • Duke Spine Division
  • University of Kansas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

34 Scopus citations

Abstract

Study Design. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Objective. Evaluate the impact of correcting normative segmental lordosis values on postoperative outcomes. Background. Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remain unclear. Patients and Methods. Patients were grouped based on offset to normative segmental lordosis values, extracted from recent publications. Matched patients were within 10% of the cohort's mean offset, less than or over 10% were undercorrected and overcorrected. Surgical technique, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and two years. Results. In total, 510 patients with a mean age of 64.6, a mean Charlson comorbidity index 2.08, and a mean follow-up of 25 months. L4-5 was least likely to be matched (19.1%), while L4-S1 was the most likely (24.3%). More patients were overcorrected at proximal levels (T10-L2; undercorrected, U: 32.2% vs. matched, M: 21.7% vs. overcorrected, O: 46.1%) and undercorrected at distal levels (L4-S1: U: 39.0% vs. M: 24.3% vs. O: 36.8%). Postoperative Oswestry disability index was comparable across correction groups at all spinal levels except at L4-S1 and T10-L2/L4-S1, where overcorrected patients and matched were better than undercorrected (U: 32.1 vs. M: 25.4 vs. O: 26.5, P=0.005; U: 36.2 vs. M: 24.2 vs. O: 26.8, P=0.001; respectively). Patients overcorrected at T10-L2 experienced higher rates of proximal junctional failure (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P<0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebrae (U: -9.2±9.4° vs. M: -9.6±9.1° vs. O: -12.2±10.0°, P<0.001), whereas undercorrection at these levels led to higher rates of revision for implant failure (U: 14.2% vs. M: 7.3% vs. O: 6.4%, P=0.025). Conclusions. Patients undergoing fusion for adult spinal deformity suffer higher rates of proximal junctional failure with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1187-1194
Number of pages8
JournalSpine
Volume49
Issue number17
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2024

Keywords

  • adult spinal deformity
  • caudal lordosis
  • correction
  • implant failure
  • lumbar redistribution
  • patient-reported outcomes
  • proximal junctional kyphosis
  • sagittal alignment
  • segmental lordosis
  • surgical outcomes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Lumbar Lordosis Redistribution and Segmental Correction in Adult Spinal Deformity: Does it Matter?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this