Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long vs. short fusions for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: does balance matters?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Surgery of adult scoliosis was based upon coronal plane radiographical analysis using Cobb angle measurements, but recently it has been demonstrated that sagittal spinopelvic alignment plays a critical role in determining the final outcome. The aim of this paper is to compare the clinical and radiological results of 81 patients affected by adult scoliosis, treated with short or long fusions, and followed for 2–5 year follow-up.

Materials and methods

81 patients affected by degenerative lumbar scoliosis managed by posterior-only surgery were retrospectively evaluated. Fifty-seven patients underwent to a short fusion procedure, while 24 had a long fusion. Clinical and radiographic coronal and sagittal spinopelvic parameters were compared between the two groups.

Results

Coronal Cobb angle was 24° preoperatively and passed to 12° in the short fusion group, while changed from 45° to 10° in the long fusion group. Lumbar lordosis was 45° preoperatively and 60° at final follow-up in the short fusion group passed from 24° to 55° in the long fusion group. Sacral slope passed from 25° to 45° in the short fusion group, while from 10° to 40° in the long fusion group. Pelvic tilt passed from 24° to 13° in the short fusion group, and from 28° to 23° in the long fusion group.

Conclusion

Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis improved balance and alignment of the spine, and also the coronal plane in terms of Cobb angle. These results were associated to a consistent clinical improvement and an acceptable rate of complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aebi M (2005) The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J 14:925–948. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1053-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Daffner SD, Vaccaro AR (2003) Adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 32:77–82 (discussion 82)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ploumis A, Transfeldt EE, Gilbert TJ et al (2006) Degenerative lumbar scoliosis: radiographic correlation of lateral rotatory olisthesis with neural canal dimensions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2353–2358. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000240206.00747.cb

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Freedman BA, Horton WC, Rhee JM et al (2009) Reliability analysis for manual radiographic measures of rotatory subluxation or lateral listhesis in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:603–608. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819a841e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Urrutia J, Espinosa J, Diaz-Ledezma C, Cabello C (2011) The impact of lumbar scoliosis on pain, function and health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women. Eur Spine J 20:2223–2227. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1829-z

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kilshaw M, Baker RP, Gardner R et al (2011) Abnormalities of the lumbar spine in the coronal plane on plain abdominal radiographs. Eur Spine J 20:429–433. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1610-8

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ploumis A, Transfledt EE, Denis F (2007) Degenerative lumbar scoliosis associated with spinal stenosis. Spine J 7:428–436. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.07.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tribus CB (2003) Degenerative lumbar scoliosis: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 11:174–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pritchett JW, Bortel DT (1993) Degenerative symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:700–703. doi:10.1097/00007632-199305000-00004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang Y, Zhang XS, Zhang YG et al (2005) Characteristics of nerve root compression caused by degenerative lumbar stenosis with scoliosis. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 27:170–173. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2003.07.006

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wu C-H, Wong C-B, Chen L-H et al (2008) Instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:310–315. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318148b256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M et al (2009) Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 9:13–21. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang G, Hu J, Liu X, Cao Y (2015) Surgical treatments for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a meta analysis. Eur Spine J 24:1792–1799. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3942-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bridwell KH, Berven S, Edwards C et al (2007) The problems and limitations of applying evidence-based medicine to primary surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:S135–S139. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181453e22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kleinstueck FS, Fekete TF, Jeszenszky D et al (2014) Adult degenerative scoliosis: comparison of patient-rated outcome after three different surgical treatments. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3484-7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Birknes JK, Harrop JS, White AP et al (2008) Adult degenerative scoliosis: A review. Neurosurgery. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000325485.49323.B2

    Google Scholar 

  17. Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E et al (2002) Italian version of the Roland Disability Questionnaire, specific for low back pain: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Eur Spine J 11:126–129. doi:10.1007/s005860100262

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lafage V, Schwab F, Vira S et al (2011) Spino-pelvic parameters after surgery can be predicted: a preliminary formula and validation of standing alignment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1037–1045. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181eb9469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cho K-J, Suk S-I, Park S-R et al (2007) Complications in posterior fusion and instrumentation for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2232–2237. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b2d3c

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Faldini C, Di Martino A, De Fine M et al (2013) Current classification systems for adult degenerative scoliosis. Musculoskelet Surg 97:1–8. doi:10.1007/s12306-013-0245-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Koller H, Pfanz C, Meier O et al (2015) Factors influencing radiographic and clinical outcomes in adult scoliosis surgery: a study of 448 European patients. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3898-x

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S et al (2013) Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E803–E812. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318292b7b9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Berjano P, Langella F, Ismael M-F et al (2014) Successful correction of sagittal imbalance can be calculated on the basis of pelvic incidence and age. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 6):587–596. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3556-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cho KJ, Il Suk S, Park SR et al (2008) Short fusion versus long fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 17:650–656. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0615-z

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Crandall DG, Revella J (2009) 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) 34:2126–2133. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b612db

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zimmerman RM, Mohamed AS, Skolasky RL et al (2010) Functional outcomes and complications after primary spinal surgery for scoliosis in adults aged forty years or older: a prospective study with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1861–1866. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e57827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang MY (2011) PLIF for the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 153:557. doi:10.1007/s00701-010-0910-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tsai T-H, Huang T-Y, Lieu A-S et al (2011) Functional outcome analysis: instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 153:547–555. doi:10.1007/s00701-010-0909-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. La Grone MO (1988) Loss of lumbar lordosis. A complication of spinal fusion for scoliosis. Orthop Clin North Am 19:383–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hassanzadeh H, Jain A, El Dafrawy MH et al (2013) Three-column osteotomies in the treatment of spinal deformity in adult patients 60 years old and older: outcome and complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:726–731. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827c2415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heary RF, Karimi RJ (2010) Correction of lumbar coronal plane deformity using unilateral cage placement. Neurosurg Focus 28:E10. doi:10.3171/2009.12.FOCUS09281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Berven S et al (2010) Changes in radiographic and clinical outcomes with primary treatment adult spinal deformity surgeries from two years to three- to five-years follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1849–1854. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181efa06a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Glassman SD et al (2013) Clinical and radiographic parameters that distinguish between the best and worst outcomes of scoliosis surgery for adults. Eur Spine J 22:402–410. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2547-x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pichelmann MA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (2010) Revision rates following primary adult spinal deformity surgery: six hundred forty-three consecutive patients followed-up to twenty-two years postoperative. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:219–226. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c91180

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Orthopaedics, Department Rizzoli Sicilia, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli di Bologna, University of Bologna, Via Giulio Cesare Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy

    Cesare Faldini, Angelo Toscano & Francesco Traina

  2. Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli di Bologna, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Raffaele Borghi & Fabrizio Perna

  3. Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy

    Alberto Di Martino

Authors
  1. Cesare Faldini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alberto Di Martino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raffaele Borghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabrizio Perna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Angelo Toscano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francesco Traina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cesare Faldini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faldini, C., Di Martino, A., Borghi, R. et al. Long vs. short fusions for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: does balance matters?. Eur Spine J 24 (Suppl 7), 887–892 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4266-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4266-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation