The role of posterior column osteotomies versus lumbar decompressions in improving lower extremity motor strength in adult spinal deformity patients with preoperative motor impairment

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine if there are any specific procedural, demographic, and/or radiographic factors that are associated with an improved postoperative lower extremity (LE) motor score (LEMS) among patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) and abnormal baseline LEMS undergoing surgical correction. METHODS Patients with ASD enrolled in an observational prospective study from 2018 to 2023 at 13 spinal deformity centers in North America were queried. Eligible participants met at least one of the following radiographic and/or procedural inclusion criteria: pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch ≥ 25°, T1 pelvic angle ≥ 30°, SVA ≥ 15 cm, thoracic scoliosis ≥ 70°, thoracolumbar scoliosis ≥ 50°, global coronal malalignment ≥ 7 cm, underwent 3-column osteotomy (3CO), spinal fusion ≥ 12 levels, and/or age ≥ 65 years with ≥ 7 levels of instrumentation. Patients with a baseline abnormal LEMS were dichotomized based on whether the LEMS improved or deteriorated from baseline by the 6-week postoperative visit. Patients with a maintained LEMS by 6 weeks compared with baseline were excluded. Patient and operative characteristics were compared through bivariate analyses to assess differences in treatment. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to discern independent factors associated with improved LEMS while controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS Of 121 patients (77 female, mean age 62.9 years) included in the study, 109 (90.1%) improved and 12 (9.9%) experienced further deterioration from baseline to 6 weeks. Both groups had similar baseline LEMS by laterality and per nerve root. The groups were similar in age, sex, comorbidities, baseline LEMS, BMI, surgical indication, number of instrumented levels, estimated blood loss, operating room time, and hospital length of stay (p > 0.05). No differences in radiographic parameters at baseline and 6 weeks were observed aside from patients whose score had deteriorated experiencing greater change in the L1 pelvic angle (∆L1PA) (−8.0° ± 8.3° vs −1.6° ± 7.6°, p = 0.0413). Despite having similar frequencies of lumbar decompressions performed across a similar number of levels, patients whose conditions had deteriorated at 6 weeks had fewer lumbar posterior column osteotomies (PCOs) performed (50% vs 82.6%, p = 0.0169). No differences in in the frequency and number of 3COs performed were observed. Patients whose score had deteriorated experienced greater intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) changes (41.7% vs 8.3%, p = 0.0050), all of which were motor deficits. Controlling for ∆L1PA and IONM changes revealed lumbar PCOs to be an independent driver of improved LEMS (OR 4.99 [95% CI 1.05–23.70]), with excellent model performance (p = 0.0031, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test p = 0.3017). CONCLUSIONS Performing lumbar decompressions alone might not be enough to improve LE weakness in patients with ASD and preoperative motor impairment, while the use of PCO was beneficial for improvement. Thus, more aggressive and thorough decompressions afforded by a combined approach of lumbar PCOs and decompression should be considered in this patient population to optimize postoperative motor strength.