The mechanism in junctional failure of thoraco-lumbar fusions. Part I: Biomechanical analysis of mechanisms responsible of vertebral overstress and description of the cervical inclination angle (CIA)

  • Jean-Charles Le Huec
  • Jonathon Richards
  • Andreas Tsoupras
  • Rachel Price
  • Amélie Léglise
  • Antonio A. Faundez
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to describe the biomechanical theory explaining junctional breakdowns in thoraco-lumbar fusions, by taking the example of vertebral compression fractures. Also, a new angle, the cervical inclination angle (CIA), describing the relative position of the head at each vertebral level, is presented.

Methods

For the CIA, the data were collected from 137 asymptomatic subjects of a prospective database, containing clinical and radiologic informations. All the 137 subjects have an Oswestry score less than 15% and a pain score less than 2/10 and were part of a previously published study describing the Odontoïd-hip axis angle (ODHA). For each vertebral level from T1 to T12, the CIA as well as the vertical and horizontal distances was measured in reference to the sella turcica (ST), and a vertical line drawn from the ST. Average values and correlation coefficients were calculated.

Results

The CIA is an angle whose average value varies very little between T1 and T5 (74.9°–76.85°), and then increases progressively from T6 to T12. T1–T5 vertebra are always in line within the thoracic spine for each subject and can be considered as a straight T1–T5 segment. In addition, it was found that the vertical inclination of T1–T5 segment is correlated with the C7 slope (R 2 = 0.6383).

Conclusion

The T1–T5 segment inclination is correlated with the C7 slope, and because the latter defines the cervical curve as previously shown, the T1–T5 segment can be considered as the base from which the cervical spine originates. Its role is, thus, similar to the pelvis and its sacral slope, which is the base from which the lumbar spine originates. The CIA along with the ODHA, which describes the adequacy of the global balance in young and elderly asymptomatic populations, are two important parameters that could help us to better understand junctional breakdowns in thoraco-lumbar fusion surgeries.

Keywords

Proximal junctional kyphosis Proximal junctional failure Bending moment Vertebral fracture Sagittal balance 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Cho SK, Shin JI, Kim YJ (2014) Proximal junctional kyphosis following adult spinal deformity surgery. Eur Spine J 23:2726–2736.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3531-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hyun SJ, Kim YJ, Rhim SC (2016) Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis after stopping at thoracolumbar junction have lower muscularity, fatty degeneration at the thoracolumbar area. Spine J 16:1095–1101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.05.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mummaneni PV, Park P, Fu KM, Wang MY, Nguyen S, Lafage V, Uribe JS, Ziewacz J, Terran J, Okonkwo DO, Anand N, Fessler R, Kanter AS, LaMarca F, Deviren V, Bess RS, Schwab FJ, Smith JS, Akbarnia BA, Mundisjr GM, Shaffrey CI (2016) Does minimally invasive percutaneous posterior instrumentation reduce risk of proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity surgery? A propensity-matched cohort analysis. Neurosurgery 78:101–108.  https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000001002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nguyen NL, Kong CY, Hart RA (2016) Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure-diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9:299–308.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9353-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yagi M, Rahm M, Gaines R, Maziad A, Ross T, Kim HJ, Kebaish K, Boachie-Adjei O, Complex Spine Study G (2014) Characterization and surgical outcomes of proximal junctional failure in surgically treated patients with adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E607–E614.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hostin R, McCarthy I, O’Brien M, Bess S, Line B, Boachie-Adjei O, Burton D, Gupta M, Ames C, Deviren V, Kebaish K, Shaffrey C, Wood K, Hart R, International Spine Study G (2013) Incidence, mode, and location of acute proximal junctional failures after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine 38:1008–1015.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e318271319c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ha Y, Maruo K, Racine L, Schairer WW, Hu SS, Deviren V, Burch S, Tay B, Chou D, Mummaneni PV, Ames CP, Berven SH (2013) Proximal junctional kyphosis and clinical outcomes in adult spinal deformity surgery with fusion from the thoracic spine to the sacrum: a comparison of proximal and distal upper instrumented vertebrae. J Neurosurg Spine 19:360–369.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.5.spine12737 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Le Huec JC, Leijssen P, Duarte M, Aunoble S (2011) Thoracolumbar imbalance analysis for osteotomy planification using a new method: FBI technique. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):669–680.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1935-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cho SK, Pahys JM, Zebala LP, Dorward IG, Cho W, Baldus C, Hill BW, Kang MM (2013) Proximal junctional kyphosis in primary adult deformity surgery: evaluation of 20 degrees as a critical angle. Neurosurgery 72:899–906.  https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31828bacd8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cammarata M, Aubin CE, Wang X, Mac-Thiong JM (2014) Biomechanical risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a detailed numerical analysis of surgical instrumentation variables. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E500–E507.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Denis F, Sun EC, Winter RB (2009) Incidence and risk factors for proximal and distal junctional kyphosis following surgical treatment for Scheuermann kyphosis: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E729–E734.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181ae2ab2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Rinella A, Edwards C 2nd (2005) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1643–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yanik HS, Ketenci IE, Polat A, Ulusoy A, Deniz G, Kose O, Erdem S (2015) Prevention of proximal junctional kyphosis after posterior surgery of Scheuermann kyphosis: an operative technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:E101–105.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000157 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim HJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Park MS, Song KS, Piyaskulkaew C, Chuntarapas T (2014) Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis requiring revision surgery have higher postoperative lumbar lordosis and larger sagittal balance corrections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E576–E580.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim HJ, Yagi M, Nyugen J, Cunningham ME, Boachie-Adjei O (2012) Combined anterior–posterior surgery is the most important risk factor for developing proximal junctional kyphosis in idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1633–1639.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2179-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Glattes CR, Rhim S, Cheh G (2008) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2179–2184.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31817c0428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Kim J, Cho SK (2005) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis following segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2045–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Kim J, Cho SK, Cheh G, Yoon J (2007) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after 3 different types of posterior segmental spinal instrumentation and fusions: incidence and risk factor analysis of 410 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2731–2738.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31815a7ead CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lau D, Clark AJ, Scheer JK, Daubs MD, Coe JD, Paonessa KJ, LaGrone MO, Kasten MD, Amaral RA, Trobisch PD, Lee JH, Fabris-Monterumici D, Anand N, Cree AK, Hart RA, Hey LA, Ames CP, Committee SRSASD (2014) Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review of the literature as a background to classification development. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:2093–2102.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000627 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu FY, Wang T, Yang SD, Wang H, Yang DL, Ding WY (2016) Incidence and risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 25:2376–2383.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4534-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maruo K, Ha Y, Inoue S, Samuel S, Okada E, Hu SS, Deviren V, Burch S, William S, Ames CP, Mummaneni PV, Chou D, Berven SH (2013) Predictive factors for proximal junctional kyphosis in long fusions to the sacrum in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E1469–E1476.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a51d43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mendoza-Lattes S, Ries Z, Gao Y, Weinstein SL (2011) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult reconstructive spine surgery results from incomplete restoration of the lumbar lordosis relative to the magnitude of the thoracic kyphosis. Iowa Orthop J 31:199–206PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Leary PT, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Good CR, Pichelmann MA, Buchowski JM, Kim YJ, Flynn J (2009) Risk factors and outcomes for catastrophic failures at the top of long pedicle screw constructs: a matched cohort analysis performed at a single center. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2134–2139.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181b2e17e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park SJ, Lee CS, Chung SS, Lee JY, Kang SS, Park SH (2016) Different risk factors of proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure following long instrumented fusion to the sacrum for adult spinal deformity: survivorship analysis of 160 patients. Neurosurgery.  https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001240 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang J, Zhao Y, Shen B, Wang C, Li M (2010) Risk factor analysis of proximal junctional kyphosis after posterior fusion in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Injury 41:415–420.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.01.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yagi M, Akilah KB, Boachie-Adjei O (2011) Incidence, risk factors and classification of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E60–E68.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181eeaee2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yagi M, King AB, Boachie-Adjei O (2012) Incidence, risk factors, and natural course of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Minimum 5 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1479–1489.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31824e4888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fechtenbaum J, Etcheto A, Kolta S, Feydy A, Roux C, Briot K (2016) Sagittal balance of the spine in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 27:559–567.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3283-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nachemson A (1965) The effect of forward leaning on lumbar intradiscal pressure. Acta Orthop Scand 35:314–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Skalli W, Champain S, Mosnier T (2007) Biomécanique du Rachis. In: Elsevier (ed) Cahiers d’enseignement de la SOFCOT, pp 8–17Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nardi A, Tarantino U, Ventura L, Armotti P, Resmini G, Cozzi L, Tonini G, Ramazzina E, Rossini M (2011) Domino effect: mechanic factors role. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 8:38–42PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Amabile C, Le Huec JC, Skalli W (2016) Invariance of head–pelvis alignment and compensatory mechanisms for asymptomatic adults older than 49 years. Eur Spine J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4830-8 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Duval-Beaupere G, Schmidt C, Cosson P (1992) A Barycentremetric study of the sagittal shape of spine and pelvis: the conditions required for an economic standing position. Ann Biomed Eng 20:451–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vital JM, Senegas J (1986) Anatomical bases of the study of the constraints to which the cervical spine is subject in the sagittal plane. A study of the center of gravity of the head. Surg Radiol Anat 8:169–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Amabile C, Pillet H, Lafage V, Barrey C, Vital JM, Skalli W (2016) A new quasi-invariant parameter characterizing the postural alignment of young asymptomatic adults. Eur Spine J 25:3666–3674.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4552-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morvan G, Mathieu P, Vuillemin V, Guerini H, Bossard P, Zeitoun F, Wybier M (2011) Standardized way for imaging of the sagittal spinal balance. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):602–608.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1927-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Faro FD, Marks MC, Pawelek J, Newton PO (2004) Evaluation of a functional position for lateral radiograph acquisition in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2284–2289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Le Huec JC, Hasegawa K (2016) Normative values for the spine shape parameters using 3D standing analysis from a database of 268 asymptomatic Caucasian and Japanese subjects. Eur Spine J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4485-5 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Le Huec JC, Demezon H, Aunoble S (2015) Sagittal parameters of global cervical balance using EOS imaging: normative values from a prospective cohort of asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Spine J 24:63–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3632-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dubousset J (1994) Three-dimensional analysis of the scoliotic deformity. In: Weinstein SL (ed) Pediatric spine: principles and practice. Raven Press, New York, pp 480–481Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Charles Le Huec
    • 1
  • Jonathon Richards
    • 1
  • Andreas Tsoupras
    • 2
  • Rachel Price
    • 1
  • Amélie Léglise
    • 1
  • Antonio A. Faundez
    • 2
  1. 1.Spine Unit 2University Victor SegalenBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology DivisionGeneva University Hospitals and Hôpital La TourMeyrinSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations