Advertisement

Analysis of sagittal lumbar alignment before and after posterior instrumentation: Risk factor for adjacent unfused segment

  • Y. IzumiEmail author
  • K. Kumano
Original articles

Abstract

The sagittal plane alignment of the degenerative lumbar spine before and after posterior spinal instrumentation surgery was retrospectively studied by radiographic analysis to evaluate the risk factor for adjacent unfused segments. One hundred and thirty-six patients were studied radiographically. The minimum follow-up period was three years. Lordotic angles were obtained from L1 to L5 and from L1 to S1. Lordotic values before and after posterior instrumentation surgery were compared, and degenerative changes in the adjacent unfused segments were analyzed. Significant degenerative changes in the adjacent unfused segments occurred in 21 cases (15.4%). The mean lordotic angles were decreased by approximately 10° after surgery in patients with postoperative changes in the adjacent unfused segment. Conversely, these angles were slightly increased in patients without adjacent segmental changes. These differences in postoperative changes in the angle of lordosis between patients with and without degenerative changes of the adjacent unfused segment were significant (p < 0.01). Loss of lordosis after posterior spinal instrumentation surgery is a significant risk factor for degenerative changes in the adjacent unfused segments.

Key words

Spinal instrumentation Lumbar alignment Loss of lordosis Adjacent unfused segments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S (1995) Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar disorders. J Spinal Diord 8: 464–73Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckers L, Briddwell J (1991) The role of lordosis. Acta orthop Belg 57: 198–202Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casey MP, Asher MA, Jacob RR, Orrick JM (1987) The effect of Harrington rod contouring on lumbar lordosis. Spine 12: 750–753Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davies AG, McMaster MJ (1992) The effect of Luque-rod instrumentation on sagittal contour of the lumbosacral spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and the preservation of a physiologic lumbar lordosis. Spine 17: 112–115Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards CC, Levine AM (1989) Complications associated with posterior instrumentation in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar injuries, complications of spine surgery. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 164–199Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farfan HF, Hunberdean Dubow HI (1972) Lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 54: 492–510Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guanciale AF, Dinsay JM, Watkins RG (1996) Lumbar lordosis in spinal fusion, a comparison of intraoperative results of patient positioning on two different operative table frame types. Spine 21: 964–969Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ha KY, Schendal MJ, Lewis JL, Oglivie JW (1993) Effect of immobilization and configuration on lumbar adjacent segment biomechanics. J Spinal Disord 6:99–105Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herkowitz HN (1994) Lumbar spinal stenosis: Indication for arthrodesis and spinal instrumentation. American academy of orthopaedic surgeons instructional course lecture 43: 425–433Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Inufusa A, An HS, Glover JM, McGrady L, Lim TH, Riley LH (1996) The ideal amount of lumbar distraction for pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine 21: 2218–2223Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Itoi E (1991) Roentgenographic analysis of posture in spinal osteoporosis. Spine 16: 750–756Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson RP, McMnaus AC (1994) Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age, sex, and size: prospective study. Spine 19: 1611–1618Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Korovessis P, Stamatakis M, Baikousis A (1999) Segmental Roentgenographic analysis of vertebral inclination on sagittal plane in asymptomatic versus chronic low back pain patients. J Spinal Disord 12: 131–137Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korovessis PG, Stamatakis MV, Baikousis AG (1998) Reciprocal angulation of vertebral bodies in sagittal plane in an asymptomatic Greek population. Spine 23: 700–705Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kostuik JP, Hall BD (1983) Spinal fusions to the sacrum in adults with scoliosis. Spine 8: 489–500Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    LaGrone MO (1988) Loss of lumbar lordosis. A complication of spinal fusion for scoliosis. Orthop clin of north am 19: 383–393Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee CK, Langrana NA (1984) Lumbosacral spinal fusion: A biomechanical study. Spine 9: 574–581Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13: 375–377Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lehman TR, Spratt KF, Tozz JE, et al. (1987) Long term follow up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine 12: 97–103Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lord MJ, Small JM, Dinsay JM, Watkins RG (1997) Lumbar lordosis, effects of sitting and standing. Spine 22: 2571–2574Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Michel CR, Lalain JJ (1985) Long-term evaluation of the lumbar spine below the fusion segments. Spine 10: 414–420Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moskowitz A, Moe JH, Winter RB, Binner H (1980) Long term follow-up of scoliosis fusion. J Boen Joint Surg [Am] 62: 314–316Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peterson MD, Nelson LM, McManus AC, Jackson RP (1995) The effect of operative position on lumbar lordosis. Spine 20: 1419–1424Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Phillips WA, DeWald RL (1985) A comparison of Luque segmental instrumentation with Harrington rod instrumentation in the management of idiopathic scoliosis. Orthopedic transaction 9: 437–438Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Polly DW, Killkelly FX, McHale KA, Asplund LM, Mulligan M, Chang AS Measurement of lumbar lordosis. Spine 21: 1530–1536Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schlensener RC (1996) Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine 21: 970–981Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shirado O, Zdeblick TA, McAfee PC, Warden KE (1991) Biomechanical evaluation of methods of posterior stabilization of the spine and posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis for lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 73: 518–526Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stephens GC, Yoo JU, Wilbur G (1996) Comparison of lumbar sagittal alignment produced by different operative positions. Spine 21: 1802–1807Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stokes AF, Frymoyer JW (1987) Segmental motion and instability. Spine 12: 688–691Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Swank SM, Mauri TM, Brown JC (1990) The lumbar lordosis below Harriongton instrumentation for scoliosis. Spine 15: 181–186Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tan SB, Kozak JA, Dickson JH, Nalty TJ (1994) The effect of operative position on sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine. Spine 19: 314–318Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thomson JD, Renshaw TM (1989) Analysis of lumbar lordosis in posterior spine fusions for idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord 2: 93–98Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. (1992) Patient outcomes after lumbar spine fusions. JAMA 268: 907–910Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Williams AM, Hawly JA, McKinzie OA, van Wijmen PM (1991) A comparison of the effects of two sitting postures on back and referred pain. Spine 16: 1185–1191Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Winter RB (1986) Harrington instrumentation into the lumbar spine. Technique for preservation of normal lordosis. Spine 11: 633–635Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryKantoh Rosai HospitalTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations