Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preoperative, Intraoperative, and Postoperative Standing Lordosis After Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy: An Analysis of Radiographic Parameters and Surgical Strategy

  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective consecutive case series.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between intraoperative and postoperative lumbar spine measurements after pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO). We analyzed the amount of lordosis lost between the prone intraoperative image and the final upright standing film. The outcome of this analysis should be used in preoperative planning for osteotomy procedures.

Methods

Sixteen patients had pre-, intra- and postoperative measurements of lumbar lordosis. Pre- and postoperative measures of pelvic parameters were also determined. Comparisons were made between pre-, intra- and postoperative measures of pelvic parameters, with specific attention to lumbar lordosis correction and the loss of correction with transition to a standing position.

Results

The average pelvic mismatch between preoperative lumbar lordosis and pelvic incidence was 37 degrees whereas the postoperative mismatch measured 3.2 degrees. All patients had a significant correction of their lumbar lordosis. The lumbar lordosis showed a highly significant loss of 12.5 degrees from the intraoperative prone position to the postoperative standing position, with the average lumbar lordosis intraoperatively (67 degrees) decreasing to a standing lumbar lordosis of 54 degrees (p <.000001).

Conclusions

This analysis should aid in preoperative planning for sagittal global alignment correction and can reduce the chance of over- or under-correction in patients having a PSO procedure. Given the narrow postoperative target that is associated with better outcomes for patients, the loss of lumbar lordosis from prone to standing position may be a crucial variable in this planning process.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lafage V, Schwab F, Vira S, et al. Spino-pelvic parameters after surgery can be predicted: a preliminary formula and validation of standing alignment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:1037–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schwab F, Lafage V, Patel A, et al. Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:1828–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, et al. Adult spinal deformity—postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:2224–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwab F, Ungar B, Blondel B, et al. Scoliosis Research Society—Schwab Adult Spinal Deformity Classification. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:1077–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR, et al. Risk factors of sagittal decompensation after long posterior instrumentation and fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:1595–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee SH, Kim KT, Suk KS, et al. Sagittal decompensation after corrective osteotomy for lumbar degenerative kyphosis: classification and risk factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:E538–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bridwell KH, Lewis SJ, Rinella A, et al. Pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the treatment of fixed sagittal imbalance. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86–A(suppl 1):44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bridwell KH. Decision making regarding Smith-Petersen vs. pedicle subtraction osteotomy vs. vertebral column resection for spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31(19 suppl):S171–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wiggins GC, Ondra SL, Shaffrey CI. Management of iatrogenic flat-back syndrome. Neurosurg Focus 2003;15:E8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Aubin CE, Labelle H, Chevrefils C, et al. Preoperative planning simulator for spinal deformity surgeries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:2143–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jamali AA. Digital templating and preoperative deformity analysis with standard imaging software. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:2695–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. de Visser H, Adam CJ, Salvado O, et al. Interactive image manipulation for surgical planning. Med J Aust 2011;194:S41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Peterson MD, Nelson LM, McManus AC, et al. The effect of operative position on lumbar lordosis. A radiographic study of patients under anesthesia in the prone and 90–90 positions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1419–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Guanciale AF, Dinsay JM, Watkins RG. Lumbar lordosis in spinal fusion. A comparison of intraoperative results of patient positioning on two different operative table frame types. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:964–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Harimaya K, Lenke LG, Mishiro T, et al. Increasing lumbar lordosis of adult spinal deformity patients via intraoperative prone positioning. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:2406–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chin KR, Kuntz AF, Bohlman HH, et al. Changes in the iliac crest-lumbar relationship from standing to prone. Spine J 2006;6:185–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee JH, Lee JH, Yoon KS, et al. Effect of intraoperative position used in posterior lumbar interbody fusion on the maintenance of lumbar lordosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;8:263–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cho KJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Comparison of Smith-Petersen versus pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the correction of fixed sagittal imbalance. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2030–7; discussion 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ondra SL, Marzouk S, Koski T, et al. Mathematical calculation of pedicle subtraction osteotomy size to allow precision correction of fixed sagittal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:E973–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang BP, Ondra SL, Chen LA, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of thoracic and lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy for fixed sagittal imbalance. J Neurosurg Spine 2006;5:9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lafage V, Schwab F, Vira S, et al. Does vertebral level of pedicle subtraction osteotomy correlate with degree of spinopelvic parameter correction? J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14:184–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, et al. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2024–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sethi RS, Pong RP, Leveque JC, et al. The Seattle Spine Team approach to adult deformity surgery: a systems-based approach to perioperative care and subsequent reduction in perioperative complication rates. Spine Deformity 2014;2:95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ames CP, Barry JJ, Keshavarzi S, et al. Perioperative outcomes and complications of pedicle subtraction osteotomy in cases with single versus two attending surgeons. Spine Deformity 2013;1:51–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mok JM, Berven SH, Diab M, et al. Comparison of observer variation in conventional and three digital radiographic methods used in the evaluation of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:681–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Polly Jr DW, Kilkelly FX, McHale KA, et al. Measurement of lumbar lordosis. Evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:1530–5; discussion 5–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, et al. Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J 2002;11:80–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA

    Jean-Christophe Leveque MD, Alicia Edwards BA, MBA & Rajiv K. Sethi MD

  2. Department of Health Services, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

    Rajiv K. Sethi MD

  3. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA

    Rajiv K. Sethi MD

Authors
  1. Jean-Christophe Leveque MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alicia Edwards BA, MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rajiv K. Sethi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Christophe Leveque MD.

Additional information

The authors wish to acknowledge Mark O’Callaghan, MD, and Jessica Leung, MD, Group Health Cooperative, Department of Radiology, Seattle, WA, for providing independent unbiased radiological analysis.

Author disclosures

none.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leveque, JC., Edwards, A. & Sethi, R.K. Preoperative, Intraoperative, and Postoperative Standing Lordosis After Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy: An Analysis of Radiographic Parameters and Surgical Strategy. Spine Deform 4, 245–250 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2015.10.005

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2015.10.005

Keywords

Search

Navigation