European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Supplement 1, pp 115–122 | Cite as

Hypercomplex pedicle subtraction osteotomies: definition, early clinical and radiological results and complications

  • Pedro Berjano
  • Andrea Zanirato
  • Domenico Compagnone
  • Andrea Redaelli
  • Marco Damilano
  • Claudio Lamartina
Original Article
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To describe hypercomplex pedicle subtraction osteotomies (HyC-PSO) for adult spine deformity with sagittal imbalance in terms of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and complications.

Methods

From a prospective single centre database, patients undergoing PSO between January 2016 and May 2017 were reviewed. HyC-PSO were defined as those in patients with one of the following conditions: sagittal correction > 45° needed at a single level or at 1–3 consecutive vertebrae, more than 60° of total sagittal correction needed and PSO on segments of the spine with congenital deformities.

Results

22 patients were included, 14 had standard PSO (group A) and 8 had HyC-PSO (group B). Significant correction of lumbar lordosis (LL) and pelvic (PT) was noted in both groups (p < 0.01). Operative time was longer in HyC-PSO, 604 min compared to standard PSO, 478 min. A trend versus greater intraoperative blood loss (3837 vs 2285 ml) and greater intraoperative blood infusion (from cell saver plus homologous, 2306 vs 1280 ml) was recorded in HyC-PSO (ns). Patients in group B received significantly more blood units intra and postoperatively (8.25 vs 4.71 units, p = 0.006). Sagittal correction at the PSO level (54.7°—30° to 85°—vs 26.8°—8° to 39°—, p = 0.000) and total sagittal correction (64.5°—50 to 95°—vs 39.8°—20° to 51°—, p = 0.000) were greater in HyC-PSO. PROMs at the last available follow-up did not show significant differences between groups for any of the outcomes analyzed. Complications were similar in both groups.

Conclusion

This is the first report on hypercomplex pedicle subtraction osteotomies. Hypercomplex PSO describes a subset of clinical scenarios with increased surgical effort that can be measured as longer surgical time and greater blood transfusion requirements. Successful correction of misalignment can be achieved in this specific group of patients, and clinical results and complications profile could be similar to standard PSO procedures.

Keywords

Pedicle subtraction osteotomy Adult spine deformity Sagittal balance Surgery Complications Congenital spine deformity Prospective 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study has been conducted using equipment provided by the “Bando in conto capitale 2014–2015” Grant of the Ministry of Health of Italy.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This study used equipment funded by “The Italian Ministry of Health (Bando Conto Capitale 2014-2015)”. Pedro Berjano received honorarium for surgeons’ education activities from Nuvasive, Medacta, DepuySynthes and his department received unrestricted research grants from Nuvasive, Medacta, DepuySynthes and K2M. Marco Damilano received honorarium for surgeons’ education activities from Nuvasive. Claudio Lamartina received honorarium for surgeons’ education activities from Nuvasive, Medacta, DepuySynthes and K2M and his department received unrestricted research grants from Nuvasive, Medacta, DepuySynthes and K2M. No other disclosures by the rest of authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Berjano P, Aebi M (2015) Pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSO) in the lumbar spine for sagittal deformities. Eur Spine J24(Suppl 1):S49–S57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 38:726–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Berven S et al (2010) Changes in radiographic and clinical outcomes with primary treatment adult spinal deformity surgeries from 2 years to 3- to 5-year follow-up. Spine 35:1849–1854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diebo BG, Henry J, Lafage V, Berjano P (2015) Sagittal deformities of the spine: factors influencing the outcomes and complications. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 1):S3–S15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sciubba DM, Yurter A, Smith JS et al (2015) A comprehensive review of complication rates after surgery for adult deformity: a reference for informed consent. Spine Deform 3:575–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aebi M (2005) The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J 14:925–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luca A, Lovi A, Galbusera F et al (2014) Revision surgery after PSO failure with rod breakage: a comparison of different techniques. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl6):S610–S615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ayhan S, Aykac B, Guler UO et al (2016) Safety and efficacy of osteotomies in adult deformity: what happens in the first year? Eur Spine J 25:2471–2479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berjano P, Pejrona M, Damilano M, Cecchinato R, Aguirre MF, Lamartina C (2015) Corner osteotomy: a modified pedicle subtraction osteotomy for increased sagittal correction in the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 1):58–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sethi RK, Pong RP, Leveque JC, Dean TC, Olivar SJ, Rupp SM (2014) The seattle spine team approach to adult deformity surgery: a systems-based approach to perioperative care and subsequent reduction in perioperative complication rates. Spine Deform 2(2):95–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.12.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ames CP, Barry JJ, Keshavarzi S, Dede O, Weber MH, Deviren V (2013) Perioperative outcomes and complications of pedicle subtraction osteotomy in cases with single versus two attending surgeons. Spine Deform 1(1):51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2012.10.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glassman SD, Hamill CL, Bridwell KH et al (2007) The impact of perioperative complications on clinical outcome in adult deformity surgery. Spine 32:2764–2770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garbossa D, Pejrona M, Damilano M et al (2014) Pelvic parameters and global spine balance for spine degenerative disease: the importance of containing for the well-being of content. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 6):S616–S627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamartina C, Berjano P (2014) Classification of sagittal imbalance based on spinal alignment and compensatory mechanism. Eur Spine J 23(6):1177–1189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith JS, Klineberg E, Lafage V, Shaffrey CI, Schwab F, Lafage R et al (2016) Prospective multicenter assessment of perioperative and minimum 2-year postoperative complication rates associated with adult spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 25:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berjano P, Cecchinato R, Sinigaglia A, Damilano M, Ismael MF, Martini C, Villafañe JH, Lamartina C (2015) Anterior column realignment from a lateral approach for the treatment of severe sagittal imbalance: a retrospective radiographic study. Eur Spine J 24:433–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berjano P, Damilano M, Lamartina C (2012) Sagittal alignment correction and reconstruction of lumbar post-traumatic kyphosis via MIS lateral approach. Eur Spine J 21:2718–2720.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2568-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico GaleazziMilanItaly
  2. 2.Clinica Ortopedica-IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino-IST, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul CancroGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations