Georg Schmorl Prize of the German Spine Society (DWG) 2017: correction of spino-pelvic alignment with relordosing mono- and bisegmental TLIF spondylodesis
A balanced ratio of the main parameters of lumbar lordosis (LL) and pelvic incidence (PI) has high clinical relevance. A postoperative mismatch of LL and PI has been described in the literature to be associated with an inferior clinical outcome and higher postoperative revision rates. The aim of this retrospective, radiological study is to evaluate the magnitude of relordosing in mono-/bisegmental TLIF spondylodesis affecting the spino-pelvic alignment and the main contributing factors.
Materials and methods
164 patients (pat.) underwent monosegmental (n = 115, G1) and bisegmental (n = 49, G2) TLIF spondylodesis, respectively, for different indications in 2016 in our hospital. Pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis (preop., postop., 3 months postop.), implanted cage sizes, and the use of additional Smith–Petersen osteotomies were analysed retrospectively. Patients were divided into three groups depending on match of LL/PI (PI-LL < 10° green, PI-LL = 10-20° yellow, PI-LL > 20° red). Furthermore, a differentiation was made between surgeons with more than or less than 10 years of spinal surgery experience, respectively.
29.6% of pat. in G1 and 16.3% in G2 showed a highly pronounced preoperative spino-pelvic mismatch (red). A high grade of mismatch (yellow) between LL/PI was seen in 29.6% in G1 and in 38.8% in G2. The remaining patients already had a balanced ratio of LL/PI (green). Through relordosing TLIF the LL could be corrected significantly (p < 0.05). Therefore, the number of patients with a balanced sagittal alignment (green) increased from 40.9% preop. to 70.4% postoperative in G1 and from 44.9 to 85.7% in G2 (p < 0.05). The number of pat. with highly pronounced preoperative mismatch (red) could be lowered in G1 from 29.6 to 13.9% and in G2 from 16.3 to 2% postoperative (p < 0.05). In G1, the preoperative LL could be corrected from 46.3° to 53.8° (yellow) and 35.7° to 45.8° (red), while in G2, a correction was possible from 43.4° to 51.5° (yellow) and 36.6° to 50.1° (red) (p < 0.05). No significant difference of segmental/complete LL was found between radiologic measurement immediately postoperative and at the 3-month follow-up. In monosegmental fusion higher cages sizes lead to a better match of LL/PI (p < 0.05). The specific cage lordosis (5° vs. 10°) had no influence on the extent of relordosing. Experienced surgeons had significant higher postoperative matches of LL/PI (p < 0.05) and accomplished more osteotomies (p < 0.05).
This retrospective study demonstrates that significant relordosing and, therefore, correction of the spino-pelvic alignment are possible with mono-/bisegmental TLIF spondylodesis. Positive influence of higher cage sizes and surgeon’s experience was shown. We conclude that the ratio of LL/PI should be taken into account preoperatively in lumbar fusion surgery when planning mono-/bisegmental TLIF spondylodesis to optimize spino-pelvic alignment.
KeywordsTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion TLIF Sagittal alignment Lumbar lordosis Segmental lordosis Spino-pelvic mismatch
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.
- 1.Harms JG, Jeszensky D (1998) The unilateral, transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6(2):88–99Google Scholar
- 10.Lim HJ, Kwon SC, Roh SW, Jeon SR, Rhim SC (2005) Outcomes of unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disease. Korean J Spine 2(1):19–25Google Scholar
- 13.Rodríguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven E, Muñoz-Marín J, Herrera A, Velilla J (2013) Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22(12):2857–2863CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Akamaru T, Kawahara N, Tim Yoon S et al (2003) Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments: a biomechanical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(14):1560–1566Google Scholar
- 22.Audat Z, Moutasem O, Yousef K, Mohammad B (2012) Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. Singap Med J 53:183–187Google Scholar
- 23.Razak Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd, Dhoke Priyesh, Tay Kae-Sian, Yeo William, Yue Wai-Mun (2017) Single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion provides sustained improvements in clinical and radiological outcomes up to 5 years postoperatively in patients with neurogenic symptoms secondary to spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine J 11(2):204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Challier V, Boissiere L, Obeid I, Vital JM, Castelain JE, Bénard A, Ong N, Ghailane S, Pointillart V, Mazas S, Mariey R, Gille O (2017) One-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and posterior approach: is transforaminal lateral interbody fusion mandatory? Spine 42(8):529–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Kim SB, Jeon TS, Heo YM, Lee WS, Yi JW, Kim TK, Hwang CM (2009) Radiographic results of single level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disease: focusing on changes of segmental lordosis in fusion segment. Clin Orthop Surg 1(4):207–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 33.Duncan JW, Bailey RA (2012) An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 22(2):1–7Google Scholar
- 39.Godde S, Fritsch E, Dienst M, Kohn D (2003) Influence of cage geometry on sagittal alignment in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(15):1693–1699Google Scholar