The Impact of Preoperative Sagittal Imbalance on Long-term Postoperative Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Laminectomy

Abstract

Background: Postoperative sagittal alignment has been shown to be associated with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following open lumbar decompression procedures, although it is unknown whether preoperative sagittal imbalance affects clinical outcomes of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) decompression only surgery. Purpose: We sought to evaluate the impact of preoperative pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) imbalance on PROMs after MIS laminectomy for the treatment of neurogenic claudication symptoms. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing MIS laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between April 2017 and April 2021 at a single institution. Of the 52 patients included (mean follow-up, 17 months) radiographs were taken prior to surgery and assessed for sagittal alignment parameters. Patients were grouped based on the preoperative PI-LL (balanced vs unbalanced). Changes in PROMs were compared between unbalanced PI-LL and balanced PI-LL groups. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was also assessed. Results: Of the 52 patients, 17 (32.7%) had unbalanced age-adjusted preoperative PI-LL. There was no significant difference found in PROMs between unbalanced and balanced PI-LL groups preoperatively or at final follow-up. Compared with those with unbalanced PI-LL, patients with balanced PI-LL were shown to have no added benefit in achieving MCID for ODI at long-term follow-up and no added benefit in the time to achieving MCID. Conclusion: These retrospective findings suggest that patients with unbalanced preoperative PI-LL may experience significant benefit in long-term clinical outcomes following MIS laminectomy, similarly to those with balanced PI-LL at baseline. The findings also suggest that the presence of sagittal imbalance preoperatively may not appreciably influence the long-term clinical outcomes following MIS laminectomy. Prospective study involving a larger population is warranted.

Keywords

minimally invasive lumbar spine laminectomy decompression sagittal alignment PI-LL

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barrey

Roussouly

Perrin

Le Huec

. Sagittal balance disorders in severe degenerative spine. Can we identify the compensatory mechanisms? Eur Spine J. 2011;20(suppl 5):626–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1930-3.

Bayerl

Pöhlmann

Finger

, et al. The sagittal balance does not influence the 1 year clinical outcome of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without obvious instability after microsurgical decompression. Spine. 2015;40:1014–1021. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000928.

Beyer

Khalifé

Lafage

, et al. Pelvic compensation in sagittal malalignment: how much retroversion can the pelvis accommodate? Spine. 2020;45:e203–e209. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000003228.

Bouras

Stranjalis

Loufardaki

, et al. Predictors of long-term outcome in an elderly group after laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13:329–334. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.Spine09487.

Chan

Bisson

Bydon

, et al. Laminectomy alone versus fusion for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis in 426 patients from the prospective Quality Outcomes Database. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;30:234–241. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.8.Spine17913.

Chang

. Effect of sagittal spinal balance on the outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar canal stenosis. World Neurosurg. 2018;119:e200–e208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.104.

Copay

Glassman

Subach

Berven

Schuler

Carreon

. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8:968–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006.

Dohzono

Toyoda

Hori

, et al. Spinopelvic sagittal alignment after microendoscopic laminotomy in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2018;79:479–485. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1666847.

Duchesne

Kyle

Simmons

, et al. Impact of telemedicine upon rural trauma care. J Trauma. 2008;64(1):92–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31815dd4c4.

10.

Farrokhi

Haghnegahdar

Rezaee

Sharifi Rad

. Spinal sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis; a comparative study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;151:136–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.10.020.

11.

Glassman

Bridwell

Dimar

Horton

Berven

Schwab

. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine. 2005;30:2024–2029. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000179086.30449.96.

12.

Hikata

Watanabe

Fujita

, et al. Impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcomes after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis without coronal imbalance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23:451–458. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.Spine14642.

13.

Kennamer

Arginteanu

Moore

Steinberger

Yao

Gologorsky

. Complications of poor cervical alignment in patients undergoing posterior cervicothoracic laminectomy and fusion. World Neurosurg. 2019;122:e408–e414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.062.

14.

Lafage

Schwab

Challier

, et al. Defining spino-pelvic alignment thresholds: should operative goals in adult spinal deformity surgery account for age? Spine. 2016;41:62–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001171.

15.

Le Huec

Thompson

Mohsinaly

Barrey

Faundez

. Sagittal balance of the spine. Eur Spine J. 2019;28:1889–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06083-1.

16.

Lee

Jahng

Hyun

Kim

. Expansive laminoplasty versus laminectomy alone versus laminectomy and fusion for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: is there a difference in the clinical outcome and sagittal alignment? Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29:E9–E15. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000058.

17.

Liu

Zheng

Wang

. Pelvic retroversion is the key protective mechanism of L4-5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1204–1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3395-7.

18.

Löfgren

Osman

Blomqvist

Vavruch

. Sagittal alignment after laminectomy without fusion as treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: follow-up of minimum 4 years postoperatively. Global Spine J. 2020;10:425–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219858302.

19.

Louie

Vaishnav

Gang

, et al. Development and initial internal validation of a novel classification system for perioperative expectations following minimally invasive degenerative lumbar spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2021;34:E537–E544. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000001246.

20.

Lovecchio

Vaishnav

Steinhaus

, et al. Does interbody cage lordosis impact actual segmental lordosis achieved in minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion? Neurosurg Focus. 2020;49:E17. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.6.Focus20393.

21.

Lovecchio

Qureshi

. The current state of minimally invasive approaches to adult spinal deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019;12:318–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09570-6.

22.

Lugue

MKT

Watanabe

Yamazaki

, et al. Impact of L4/5 posterior interbody fusion with or without decompression on spinopelvic alignment and health-related quality-of-life outcomes. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:E504–E511. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000001013.

23.

Madkouri

Brauge

Vidon-Buthion

, et al. Improvement in sagittal balance after decompression surgery without fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis: clinical and radiographic results at 1 year. World Neurosurg. 2018;114:e417–e424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.03.002.

24.

Mok

Gang

Qureshi

McAnany

. Using minimally invasive techniques adds to the value equation for select patients. J Spine Surg. 2019;5:S101–S107. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.05.03.

25.

Ogura

Shinozaki

Kobayashi

, et al. Impact of decompression surgery without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis on sagittal spinopelvic alignment: minimum 2-year follow-up [published online ahead of print February 15, 2019]. J Neurosurg Spine. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.11.Spine181092.

26.

Phan

Mobbs

. Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine. 2016;41:E91–E100. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001161.

27.

Pourtaheri

Sharma

Savage

, et al. Pelvic retroversion: a compensatory mechanism for lumbar stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27:137–144. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.2.Spine16963.

28.

Shahi

Shinn

Singh

, et al. ODI <25 denotes patient acceptable symptom state after minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. Spine. 2023;48(3):196–202. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000004479.

29.

Shahi

Song

Dalal

, et al. Improvement following minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients 80 years or older compared with younger age groups. J Neurosurg Spine. 2022;37:828–835. https://doi.org/10.3171/2022.5.Spine22361.

30.

Shahi

Vaishnav

Mai

, et al. Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. Spine J. 2023;23:54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2022.07.087.

31.

Szewczyk

Riccio

Entezami

German

. The effect of minimally invasive dorsal cervical decompression for myelopathy on spinal alignment and range of motion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;196:105967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105967.

32.

Vaishnav

Gang

Qureshi

. Time-demand, radiation exposure and outcomes of minimally invasive spine surgery with the use of skin-anchored intraoperative navigation: the effect of the learning curve. Clin Spine Surg. 2022;35:E111–E120. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000001167.

33.

Vaishnav

Othman

Virk

Gang

Qureshi

. Current state of minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2019;5:S2–S10. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.05.02.

34.

Vaishnav

Saville

McAnany

, et al. Retrospective review of immediate restoration of lordosis in single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of static and expandable interbody cages. Oper Neurosurg. 2020;18:518–523. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opz240.

35.

Virk

Qureshi

. Navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2019;5:S25–S30. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.04.23.

36.

Zhao

Xie

Zhao

. Effect of lumbar lordosis on the adjacent segment in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018;114:e114–e120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.02.073.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB