Keywords
lumbar interbody fusion
spinopelvic parameters
spine surgery.
Abstract
Introduction: The importance of lumbar pain management lies in its recurrence and manifestations for both the patient and society. It is necessary to establish what factors lead to success in terms of pain and functionality at the time of a lumbar arthrodesis. Material and methods: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted that sought to determine which spinopelvic parameters and their values in terms of pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope, lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and mismatch (PI-LL) might have a potential relationship with favorable postoperative outcomes. We included 44 patients who underwent MIS spinal approaches in our center between January 2016 to December 2017. Surgical outcomes of pain and functionality were assessed using visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Follow up was conducted through three evaluations: one before surgical intervention and 2 at 3 and 6 months postop. Due to the sample size, the authors were unable to get statistically significant results. Results: In our descriptive retrospective study on 44 patients, we found a big positive functional change in the group of patients who had a PI-LL > 10° with an increase of 50 percentage points in the group of patients with good functionality (ODI: 0-20). In SVA > 5 cm, the range of patients with good functionality had an increase of 44.6 percentage points. The range of good functionality in patients with a PT < 20° increased 54.1 percentage points. Conclusions: In the present cohort, it was found that the radiological parameters that conditioned greater percentage change in the functionality of the patients after being taken to spine surgery were SVA of base > 5 cm and a PI-LL base > 10° and PT < 20°.References
1. Last AR, Hulbert K. Chronic low back pain: Evaluation and management. Am Fam Physician. 2009;79(12):1067-74.
2. Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol [Internet]. 2010;24(6):769-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2010.10.002.
3. Berbeo M, Diaz R, Perez JC, Giraldo-Grueso M, Gutierrez S, Villegas MC, et al. Minimally invasive surgical approach for spinal canal tumors—Technique description and experience from a reference center. J Cancer Ther [Internet]. 2017;8(3):268-77. DOI: 10.4236/jct.2017.83022.
4. Von Korff M, Crane P, Lane M, Miglioretti DL, Simon G, Saunders K, et al. Chronic spinal pain and physical-mental comorbidity in the United States: Results from the national comorbidity survey replication. Pain. 2005;113(3):331-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.11.010.
5. Salvetti MDG, Pimenta CADM, Braga PE, Corrêa CF. Disability related to chronic low back pain: Prevalence and associated factors. Rev Esc Enferm USP [Internet]. 2012;46 Spec:16-23. DOI: 10.1590/S0080-62342012000700003.
6. Adams MA. Biomechanics of back pain. Acupunct Med. 2004;22(4):178-88. DOI: 10.1136/aim.22.4.178.
7. Deyo RA, Weinstein JN. Low back pain. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2001;344(5):363-70. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200102013440508.
8. Ames CP, Smith JS, Scheer JK, Bess S, Bederman SS, Deviren V, et al. Impact of spinopelvic alignment on decision making in deformity surgery in adults. J Neurosurg Spine [Internet]. 2012;16(6):547-64. DOI: 10.3171/2012.2.SPINE11320.
9. Payares K, Lugo LH, Morales V, Londoño A. Validation in Colombia of the Oswestry disability questionnaire in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(26):E1730-5. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318219d184.
10. Acevedo J. Síndrome facetario lumbar. Nuevo signo de diagnóstico clínico. Rehabilitación [Internet]. 2004;38(4):168-74. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7120(04)73452-0. Disponible en: http://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-rehabilitacion-120-articulo-sindrome-facetario-lumbar-nuevo-signo-13064724
11. Lindado Pacheco CA, Gutierrez S, Acevedo González JC. Factores pronósticos para artrodesis lumbar. Univ Médica [Internet]. 2018;60(1):1-8. DOI: 10.11144/Javeriana.umed60-1.artr.
12. Sardi JP, Camacho JE, Diaz RC, Berbeo ME. The Berbeo-Sardi Angle (BSA): An innovative method to effectively estimate pelvic retroversion in anteroposterior radiographs-A correlation with traditional parameters. Spine Deform [Internet]. 2017;6(2):105-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspd.2017.08.011.
13. Matsumoto T, Okuda S, Maeno T, Yamashita T, Yamasaki R, Sugiura T, et al. Spinopelvic sagittal imbalance as a risk factor for adjacent-segment disease after single-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine [Internet]. 2017;26(4):435-40. DOI: 10.3171/2016.9.SPINE16232.
14. Lamartina C, Berjano P, Petruzzi M, Sinigaglia A, Casero G, Cecchinato R, et al. Criteria to restore the sagittal balance in deformity and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21 Suppl 1:S27-31. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2236-9.
15. Than KD, Park P, Fu K, Nguyen S, Wang MY, Chou D, et al. Clinical and radiographic parameters associated with best versus worst clinical outcomes in minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(1):21-5. DOI: 10.3171/2015.12.SPINE15999.
16. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Lafage V, Schwab F, Scheer JK, Protopsaltis T, et al. Comparison of best versus worst clinical outcomes for adult spinal deformity surgery: a retrospective review of a prospectively collected, multicenter database with 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine [Internet]. 2015;23(3):349-59. DOI: 10.3171/2014.12.SPINE14777.