Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design

Systematic review

Objective

The role of limited fusions compared with extensive reconstructions of the spine has not been well defined. The objective of this study is to review the current literature and provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the magnitude of surgery for patients with adult scoliosis, including indications and limitations of short-segment (≤3 levels) fusions.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Ovid and Google-Scholar using the following terms: “adult spinal deformity”, “adult scoliosis”, “degenerative scoliosis”, “scoliosis” together with “spinal fusion”, “spinal instrumentation” and “fusion”. Inclusion criteria were comparative studies comprised of thoraco-lumbar or lumbo-sacral adult scoliosis treated with short- or long-segment fusion. Other types of deformities were excluded.

Results

Of the 1736 articles identified from initial query, 9 studies comprised of 660 patients with adult scoliosis who underwent a short-segment fusion (SSF, n = 366) or a long-segment fusion (LSF, n = 294) were included and analyzed for clinical and radiographic outcomes. Summative results indicate that patients undergoing SSF have lower complication rates (.21 vs .36 complications/patient), lower revision rates (9% vs 28%), and though LSF patients had greater scoliotic curvatures and sagittal imbalance at baseline, both groups had significant clinical improvement after surgery. However, the heterogeneous nature of the published data calls into question the reliability of these summative results.

Conclusions

Judicious use of SSF can achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes in carefully-selected patients with adult scoliosis. Factors to consider when selecting patients for SSF include predominant symptoms, patient expectations, comorbidities and spino-pelvic parameters.

Keywords

adult spinal deformity short-segment fusion surgical indication spinal alignment spinal instrumentation spine surgery

Introduction

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) continues to be 1 of the most challenging and controversial pathologies for spine surgeons. Structural degenerative changes are hallmark of ASD and account for the majority of symptoms and disability in both well-aligned and malaligned patients.¹ Pain is the most common presenting symptom of ASD with a reported incidence of nearly 90% and first-line treatment usually starts with non-operative interventions.^2–4 However, when the desired improvement is not attained or durably maintained, patients tend to seek surgical treatment options.^5–7

Determining the optimal surgical management in patients with symptomatic spinal deformity is complex, and appropriate treatment should be individualized and planned according to both clinical and radiologic findings. Although general spino-pelvic targets and surgical goals have been reported in the literature, the number of levels to be fused and the optimal surgical approach for patients with adult scoliosis remains a topic of ongoing debate. Thus, 1 of the first questions spinal surgeons face when contemplating surgery is whether or not to fuse, and if so, how many and which levels should be included in the construct. The purpose of this article is to review the spectrum of surgical management of patients with adult scoliosis and provide guidance for an evidence-based approach based on current literature to determine which patients may benefit from limited fusion and decompression rather than extensive fusion and realignment procedures.

Methods

The authors performed a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (www.prisma-statement.org) to identify reports focused on the magnitude of surgical interventions for patients with thoracolumbar adult scoliosis. A search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases for relevant publications written in English from January 1, 2006 to December 1, 2020, using the following search terms: “adult spinal deformity”, “adult scoliosis”, “degenerative scoliosis”, “scoliosis” together with “spinal fusion”, “spinal instrumentation” and “fusion”. For some queried articles, further assessment of the reference lists as well as the “similar article” and “cited by” features of PubMed were used to screen for other qualifying studies. Titles and abstracts of all the relevant literatures were screened by a single author based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Studies were considered eligible according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) Diagnosis of thoraco-lumbar or lumbo-sacral scoliosis defined by a Cobb angle >10°; (2) comparative studies comprised of short- vs long-segment fusions of the lumbar or thoraco-lumbar spine; (3) At least 1-year mean follow-up. Studies were excluded from the review according to the following exclusion criteria: (1) Reports that focused on other types of deformities, such as neuromuscular deformity, tumors/oncologic deformity, isolated spondylolisthesis, idiopathic adolescent scoliosis and cervical deformity. (2) Biomechanical, experimental, single-arm studies, literature reviews, and meta-analysis. (3) Studies focused on non-operative management or only decompressive surgery. All relevant articles were then studied in detail and used to create a database that included the following: study design, clinical characteristics, measures of patient outcomes, baseline and postoperative spino-pelvic angles if provided, number of segments fused, complications and major findings (Table 1). The quality of the articles as well as the risk of bias were sassed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Studies assessed via the NOS can be assigned a total of 9 stars, with a score of 7 to 9 considered to be high quality, 4 to 6 considered to be moderate quality and 3 or below considered to be low quality. Due to the heterogeneity of the literature and limited number of reports, data were not pooled for a meta-analysis; instead, all articles were used to provide an evidence-based narrative review and general recommendations regarding the magnitude of surgery for patients with adult scoliosis, including indications and limitations of short-segment fusions (≤3 levels).

Table 1.

Result of Literature Review on Adult Scoliosis: Review of Articles Included Comparing Short Vs Long-Segment Fusion^a.

Citation	Study Design	Clinical Characteristics	Measured Parameters	Procedures Performed	Complications and Timing of Measure	Major Findings
Cho et al. 2008⁸	Review of a cohort of adults who underwent decompression and fusion for ASD by 2 surgeons at 2 institutions	N = 50 Patients with ASD (cobb angle >10°) Major indications of surgery were claudication and LBP	Cobb angle LL CVA SVA ODI	Decompression and short fusion within deformity (n = 28) vs long fusion proximal to deformity (n = 22) fusion using pedicle screws, +/- posterior interbody fusion	Early perioperative (<3mo) and late complications (>3mo), including pseudarthrosis and adjacent segment disease Mean follow-up: 4.3 years±1.9 years	ODI improvement was similar in both groups (P = .137). No difference in the correction of sagittal imbalance between groups (P = .26) The correction of coronal imbalance was better in the long fusion group (72%) than in the short fusion group (39%) (P = .04)
Amara et al. 2019⁹	Review of a cohort of adults who underwent decompression and fusion for ASD at a single institution	N = 99 Patients with adult scoliosis and fractional curves from L4 to S1 > 10° and radiculopathy ipsilateral to the concavity of the FC	Cobb angle SVA LL PI-LL missmatch PT	Limited fusion group (FC) underwent fractional curve fusion only (n = 27) Long fusion group included fusions from upper thoracic spine (UT) and lower thoracic spine (LT) to sacrum (n = 26, and n = 46 respectively)	The fractional curve group had a lower medical complication rate (22% [FC vs 57% (LT) vs 58% [UT), P = .009) Mean follow-up was 30 months (range 12-112), minimum 1-year follow-up	The limited fusion group had a higher rate of extension surgery (26% [FC) vs 13% [LT) vs 4% [UT), P = .068, but FC had a lower rate of non-extension revision surgery Blood loss, LOHS and rate of discharge to acute rehabilitation were all lower for FC and highest for UT (P < .001) There were no significant differences regarding 30-day readmissions, magnitude of FC, PT, LL, SVA, or CVA postoperatively
Transfeldt et al. 2010¹⁰	Review of a cohort of adults who underwent decompression and fusion for degenerative scoliosis at a single institution	N = 85 Patients with degenerative scoliosis and cobb angle ≥10° and radiculopathy	Cobb angle LL ODI SF-36 RMDQ Satisfaction questionnaire	Group I decompression only surgery (n = 21, not included in this study). Group II (n = 43) had decompression and limited (1-2 segments) fusion Group III (n = 20) had decompression and full curve fusion	Complication rates were 40% in group II vs. 56% in group III (no p was reported) Revision surgeries were needed in 33% in group II and 37% in group III (no p was reported) Mean follow-up was 4.75 years, (range 2.0 to 8.1 years)	ODI improved 7.6 points (22%) in group II and .4 points (1%) in group III (no p reported) Roland morris scores showed insignificant changes in all 3 groups Patient questionnaire reported 75% of group III patients saying surgery was a success and 77% said they would have the same surgery again. While 66% said surgery was successful and 78% would have the same surgery in group II.
Zhang et al. 2019¹¹	Review of a cohort of adults who underwent decompression and fusion for degenerative scoliosis at a single institution	N = 28 Patients with adult scoliosis (cobb angle >10°) and meeting diagnostic criteria for lenke-silva treatment level VI. All had symptoms of radiculopathy and claudication	Cobb angle SVA LL PT PI-LL missmatch ODI VAS JOA score for back pain LSDI	16 patients received short-segment fusion (number of segments not specified) 12 patients received long-segment fusion (crossing thoracolumbar junction) and osteotomy	Two patients in the long fusion group suffered from poor wound healing and cerebrospinal fluid leakage No complications occurred among patients receiving short-segment decompression/fusion Mean follow-up was 1.5 years	Blood loss, LOHS and operative time were lower in the short fusion group (P < .001) Postoperative SVA and PT had better correction in the long fusion group (both P < .001) PT and SS significantly changed postoperatively only in the long fusion group (P < .001) Both groups had improved ODI, JOA, and VAS scores after the surgery (P < .001), with no significant difference between the 2 groups Post-operative LSDI score was significantly higher in the long fusion group (P < .001)
Faldini et al. 2015¹²	Review of a cohort of adults who underwent decompression and fusion for degenerative scoliosis at a single institution	N = 81 Patients with adult scoliosis (cobb angle >10°). All patients had severe back pain with or without stenosis symptoms	Cobb angle SVA LL PT PI-LL missmatch RMDQ	Short fusion surgery (n = 57) defined as fusion within the deformity, limited to 1-3 segments. Long fusion, (n = 24) was defined when fused segments were equal or greater than 4	13 reinterventions in total, 6 due to pseudarthrosis and 7 due to infection. No discrimination among groups was made Mean follow-up: 4 years, (range 2 to 5 years)	Preoperative RMDQ average score was 15 points in the short fusion group and 16 points in the long fusion group. At 2-year follow-up both groups had scores of 4 (P < .01) LL, SS, PT and coronal cobb angles all had statistically significant improvement after surgery in the short fusion group. All but PT (P = .06) had a significant change postoperatively in the long fusion group as well
Zeng et al 2012¹³	Single-center prospective cohort investigation of 2 categories of patients with adult lumbar scoliosis	N = 43 Patients with adult scoliosis (cobb angle >10°) Group 1 patients with symptoms of stenosis Group 2 patients had symptomatic or progressive deformity	Cobb LL Modified prolo scale PSI modified from the NASS’s lumbar spine outcome instrument	Group 1 treated with posterior local decompression and limited fusion (n = 22) Group 2 treated with instrumented fusion including at least the end vertebrae, by posterior or combined approach, with or without selective decompression (n = 21)	7 patients had short-term complications and at long-term pseudarthrosis rate was 9.1% for group 1 and 9.5% for group 2 Mean follow-up: 35 months (range, 24-65)	Group 1: Coronal cobb angle and LL, had no significant change postoperatively (P > .05) Group 2: Coronal cobb angle significantly improved postoperatively (P < .05) but LL had no significant change Group 1: Average modified prolo scale went from 9.5 to 15.9 after surgery and total satisfaction rate (PSI) was 82%. Group 2: Average modified prolo scale went from 10.9 to 17.0 after surgery and total satisfaction rate (PSI) was 86%. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups of patients in their clinical results (P > .1)
Li et al. 2020¹⁴	Review of a cohort of adults who underwent decompression and fusion for degenerative scoliosis at a single institution	N = 96 Patients with adult scoliosis with a coronal cobb angle of 20° to 40° All patients had leg pain and numbness due to neurogenic claudication	Cobb angle SVA LL PT PI-LL missmatch ODI VAS	Long-segment fusion group (LSFG) involved >3 segment fusion (n = 45) Short-segment fusion group (SSFG) involved ≤3 segments fused (n = 51)	15 complications (33.33%) in the LSFG vs 10 (19.6%) in the short segment group (P < .001) Mean follow-up: 28.6 months (minimum of 24)	Operative time and blood loss were lower in short-segment than in the long-segment fixation group (P < .05) Both groups achieved similar effects in leg pain (VAS) and ODI after operation (P > .05); however, there was a better relief of low back pain in the long-segment fixation group (P < .05) Significant differences were noted in the post-operative cobb angle, SVA, LL, PT and SS between both groups (P < .01)
Kleinstueck et al. 2016¹⁵	Review of a cohort of adults who underwent decompression and fusion for degenerative scoliosis at a single institution	N = 173 Patients with adult scoliosis (cobb angle ≥10°)	Cobb angle LL VAS back pain VAS leg pain COMI Likert scale	Three groups: (D) simple decompression (not included in our study). Short fusion (SF) 1-2 levels fused without curve correction (n = 53) Long fusion (LF) ≥ 3 levels fused with attempted curve correction (n = 39)	Reintervention was required in 15% of SF and 28% in LF patients. The difference in reoperation rates among the groups was statistically significant (P < .01) Mean follow-up: 28.6 months (minimum of 24)	There were significant differences among the groups for operation duration, blood loss and general complications (both P > .05) All groups benefited significantly from surgery with no significant differences (P > .05) between them: Improvement in COMI was of 3.1 points for SF and 3.2 points for LF; a “good global outcome’’ was recorded for 74 and 76% of patients, respectively
Wang et al. 2016¹⁶	Single-center prospective cohort investigation of 3 categories of patients with adult lumbar scoliosis	N = 108 Patients with adult scoliosis (cobb angle ≥10°) and lumbar stenosis Group 1 patients with mainly lumbar stenosis symptoms Group 2 patients with compensated spinal imbalance Group 3 patients had mainly spinal imbalance symptoms	Cobb angle CVA SVA LL PI-LL missmatch ODI SRS-22	Group 1 and 2 underwent local decompression and short fusion (n = 69) Group 3 underwent correction surgery and long fusion were performed (n = 39)	Short fusion group presented 9 complications vs. 11 in the long fusion group (P = .125) Short fusion group presented with 3 pseudarthrosis vs. 2 in the long fusion group No information regarding reintervention or PJK/PJF Mean follow-up: 34 months (range: 26-71)	Blood loss, operation time and preoperative ODI scores were all significantly lower in the short fusion groups (<.05 each) Both groups presented with significant improvement in postoperative ODI scores, but there was a statistically significant greater improvement in the short fusion group (P < .005) Both preoperative and postoperative SRS-22 scores were similar among both groups

^aASD = adult spinal deformity; LL = lumbar lordosis; CVA = coronal vertical axis; SVA = sagittal vertical axis; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; FC = fractional curve; PI = pelvic incidence; PT = pelvic tilt; LOHS = length of hospital stay; RMDQ = Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; VAS = visual analog scale; JOA = Japanese Orthopaedic Association; LSDI = Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index; PSI = Patient Satisfaction Index; COMI = Core Outcomes Measurement Index.

Results

Results of the Literature Review

Initial query produced 1736 articles from the searched databases. After excluding duplicates, 1017 records were screened based on title and abstract and 998 records were discarded due to type of study (biomechanical, experimental, single arm studies, literature reviews or meta-analysis), those not written in English and those that did not address outcomes of patients with adult scoliosis treated with both long- and short-segment fusions. The remaining 19 articles deemed potentially relevant were then subjected to a full-text review and assessed using the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined previously, resulting in exclusion of an additional 10 articles. Finally, 9 studies were included for data extraction and analysis (Table 1).^8–16 2 of these were considered of moderate quality with a NOS score of 6 and 7 were considered of high quality with a NOS score ≥7 (Supplemental Table 1). Details of the selection process are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Details of the literature search and article selection process.

Patient Population and Surgical Characteristics

Overall, the 9 studies included 660 patients, all with adult scoliosis (coronal Cobb angle ≥10°) who underwent either a short-segment fusion (SSF, n = 366) or a long-segment fusion (LSF, n = 294). The definition for short- and long-segment fusion was variable across studies and in 3 of them the number of levels fused was not clearly specified.^9–11 However, none of the SSF patients had a reported arthrodesis of more than 3 segments. The mean number of vertebrae fused was 3.3 in the SSF group and 7.3 in the LSF group based on the data extracted from articles that specifically indicated the number of fusion levels.^8,12–16

Most of the procedures for both SSF and LSF were posterior approaches utilizing transpedicular screw fixation, autograft or allograft, and interbody cages. Two studies noted use of anterolateral interbody fusions; however, neither the exact number of patients nor the type of surgery was disclosed.^9,13 The study by Transfeldt et al 1110 did not describe the type of procedure in detail and was the only study with no information regarding the use of interbody fusions. All other papers stated whether interbody grafts were used, but only 2 studies discriminated the percentage of cases with cages in each group. Although only 1 study (Wang et al 1116) explicitly mentioned the use of pedicle subtraction osteotomies and Ponte osteotomies when more lordosis was necessary, all of them noted the use of decompressions and bone work to achieve adequate sagittal correction.

Six studies reported data regarding operative times; in 5 of them, operative times were significantly shorter for the SSF population (P < .05).^8,11,14–16 6 studies included data regarding blood loss and all of them found that LSF patients had significantly greater blood loss (P < .05).^{8,9,11,14–16} Average length of hospital stay was included in 4 of the studies and in half of them SSF patients had a significantly shorter stay after surgery.^9,11 Quantitative results of individual studies are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Quantitative Results of Studies Comparing Short vs Long-Segment Fusions^a.

Author	Total Patients	Follow-up (mos)	Short Fusion							Long fusion
Author	Total Patients	Follow-up (mos)	Patients	Mean Age	Fused Vertebrae	Blood loss (ml)	Operative time (min)	ODI Change	Complications	Patients	Mean Age	Fuse Vertebrae	Blood loss (ml)	Operative time (min)	ODI Change	Complicatios
Cho et al 2008⁸	50	≥ 24	28	64,4	ND	1671	179	17,8	15	22	66,9	6,5	2819	242	24,3	18
Amara et al 2019⁹	99	≥ 12	27	62,5	3	592	421	ND	11	72	66,5	ND	2292	418,5	ND	41
Transfeldt et al 2010¹⁰	63	≥ 24	43	70	ND	450	ND	7,6	16	20	63	ND	1538	ND	0,4	11,2
Zhang et al 2019¹¹	28	18	16	64,3	ND	571	258	56,8	0	12	64,3	8	1162	414	54,4	2
Faldini et al 2015¹²	81	≥ 24	57	ND	4	ND	ND	ND	ND	24	ND	6	ND	ND	ND	ND
Zeng et al 2012¹³	43	≥ 24	22	62,8	3	ND	ND	ND	5	21	58,9	≥ 6	ND	ND	ND	6
Li et al 2020¹⁴	96	≥ 24	51	69	3,1	231	159	40,9	10	45	69	6,1	352	238	45,8	15
Kleinstueck et al 2016¹⁵	92	≥ 24	53	66,3	3,2	ND	ND	ND	11	39	66,4	8	ND	ND	ND	14
Wang et al 2016¹⁶	108	≥ 26	69	60	3,3	566,6	78,1	45,85	9	39	63,7	9,8	1574	180,7	43	11

^aODI = Oswestry Disability Index.

Surgical Outcomes and Complications

Across all studies included, the major indications for surgery were low back pain associated with radiculopathy. All but 1 of the studies used at least 1 outcome scale to determine clinical improvement after surgery.⁹ Of these 8 papers, only 1 of them, in which the main objective was to compare sagittal alignment changes, did not specify if there were significant differences in pain and disability scores between the SSF and LSF groups.¹⁰ The most common outcome scale used was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) which was included in 6 studies and most of them revealed that patients in both groups (SSF and LSF) had statistically significant improvement after surgery.

A total of 184 complications were reported, 77 in the SSF population (77complications/366 pts = .21 complications per pt) and 107 in the LSF group (107/294 = .36 complications per pt). Three of the papers specifically indicated that short-segment instrumentations had significantly fewer complications than long fusions.^9,10,14 Of the total 114 revision surgeries reported, 32 (32/366 = 9%) were in the limited fusion group (mainly due to adjacent segment disease (ASD) or pseudarthrosis) and 82 (82/294 = 28%) were in the long construct group (usually due to proximal junction complications (PJK/PJF) or pseudarthrosis). Other causes of reinterventions included: distal junction kyphosis (DJK), infections, epidural hematomas and seromas, with most of these complications affecting the LSF population. Details regarding complications and revision surgery indications are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Complications and Reoperations Associated With Short vs Long-Segment Fusions^a.

Author	Short Fusion						Long Fusion						Total Reinterventions
Author	Pseudarthrosis	ASD	PJK/PJF	Infection	Others	Reintervention	Pseudarthrosis	ASD	PJK/PJF	Infection	Others	Reintervention	Total Reinterventions
Cho et al 2008⁸	0	3	0	0	0	3	2	0	0	0	2	4	7
Amara et al 2019⁹	1	5	0	0	1	7	1	1	5	ND	23	30	37
Transfeldt et al 2010¹⁰	2	1	0	1	1	5	4	0	ND	1	3	9	14
Zhang et al 2019¹¹	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Faldini et al 2015¹²	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	13
Zeng et al 2012¹³	2	0	0	1	0	3	2	0	0	2	1	5	8
Li et al 2020¹⁴	2	3	0	0	0	5	4	0	2	0	1	7	12
Kleinstueck et al 2016¹⁵	1	4	2	2	0	9	4	0	7	3	0	14	23
Wang et al 2016¹⁶	3	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	2	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
TOTALS	11	16	2	4	2	32	19	1	14	6	30	69	114

^aASD = Adjacent Segment Disease; PJK = Proximal Junction Kyphosis; PJF = Proximal Junction Failure.

Baseline and postoperative spino-pelvic parameters are presented in detail in Table 4. All studies except 1 (Kleinstueck et al 1115 only reported baseline Cobb) included pre and postoperative mean Cobb angles for SSF (range, 15 - 28.7° and 3.4 - 26.1°, respectively) and LSF (range, 21.5 - 45° and 2.8 - 31.6°, respectively). In 7 out of the 9 studies,^{8–10,12–14,16} patients who underwent LSF had significantly greater scoliotic curvatures at baseline than patients treated with short-segment instrumentation; additionally, 4 of them found that long fusions were associated with significantly greater Cobb angle corrections than short fusions (P < .05).^8–10,13 Of the 5 studies that compared global sagittal alignment in terms of sagittal vertical axis (SVA), only 2 found that longer instrumentations were associated with improved SVA (P < .03), while the rest failed to show significant differences in postoperative SVA between the fusion groups.^10,11 3 papers reported postoperative pelvic tilt being significantly improved with longer-segment instrumentations compared with SSF (P < .05),^11,12,14 and only 1 paper compared pelvic incidence – lumbar lordosis missmatch (PI-LL) finding a significant improvement when performing longer fusions as well.⁹

Table 4.

Baseline and Postoperative Spinopelvic Parameters of Studies Comparing Short vs Long-Segment Fusions^a.

Author	Short Fusion												Long Fusion
	Preoperative parameters						Postoperative parameters						Preoperative parameters							Postoperative parameters
	Cobb (º)	CVA (mm)	SVA (mm)	PI-LL (º)	LL (º)	PT (º)	Cobb (º)	CVA (mm)	SVA (mm)	PI-LL (º)	LL (º)	PT (º)	Cobb (º)	CVA (mm)	SVA (mm)	PI-LL (º)	LL (º)	PT (º)	Cobb (º)	CVA (mm)	SVA (mm)	PI-LL (º)	LL (º)	PT (º)
Cho et al 2008⁸	16.3	7.3	40.2	ND	32.7	ND	10.1	3.5	36.1	ND	31.6	ND	21.7	22.7	61	ND	25.7	ND	6.1	12.8	66.2	ND	22.1	ND
Amara et al 2019⁹	28.7	22	49	16.4	43.7	22.4	26.1	16	44	17.9	42.3	237	37.1	28	60	22	32.5	26.1	13.5	23	44	10.2	44.4	23.4
Transfeldt et al 2010¹⁰	25	ND	ND	ND	46	ND	25	ND	ND	ND	46	ND	39	ND	ND	ND	40	ND	19	ND	ND	ND	50	ND
Zhang et al 2019¹¹	18.9	ND	81	24.6	30.5	27.9	3.4	ND	47.5	16.7	38.5	29.1	21.8	ND	81.2	28.1	28.1	29.3	2.8	ND	26.8	13.7	40.8	14.7
Faldini et al 2015¹²	24	ND	ND	4	45	24	12	ND	ND	2	60	13	45	ND	ND	14	24	28	10	ND	ND	8	55	23
Zeng et al 2012¹³	15	ND	ND	ND	40.2	ND	14	ND	ND	ND	38.4	ND	43	ND	ND	ND	40.1	ND	31.6	ND	ND	ND	43.4	ND
Li et al 2020¹⁴	25.4	ND	46.2	13.8	32.7	21.9	13.5	ND	32.8	10.1	35.9	17.8	33.4	ND	63.1	19.3	27.7	23.3	12.8	ND	22.8	10.76	37.4	15.21
Kleinstueck et al 2016¹⁵	19.1	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	21.5	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Wang et al 2016¹⁶	25.4	26.5	25	34.2	10.4	ND	16.3	11.5	14	23.9	20.75	ND	41.4	51	71	42.8	5.1	ND	25.6	27	32	31.5	14.4	ND

^aCVA = coronal vertical axis; SVA = sagittal vertical axis; PI = pelvic incidence; LL = Lumbar Lordosis; PT = pelvic tilt.

Discussion

Objectives and Determinants of Surgery

There is broad agreement on the goals of ASD surgery: improvement of pain, HRQoL outcomes and patient function, low rate of reinterventions, and, most importantly, patient satisfaction. In order to achieve these objectives, the ideal surgery would entail a thorough decompression of neural elements, maintenance or restoration of global alignment, ultimate achievement of solid fusion, with minimal complications and risks.^3,4,17 Even though there is a general consensus regarding indications for surgery in patients with adult scoliosis including intractable pain, progressive deformity, spinal instability, loss of function, and neurological deficit, a monolithic approach for optimal management is not well supported by the literature. Consideration of clinical symptoms, structural factors, patient comorbidities, and patient preference should help determine whether a patient is an appropriate candidate for surgery and tailor the extent of the recommended intervention as well.

Although ASD can present with both back and radicular pain, the predominant or most debilitating symptom should be considered in helping to define how much decompression or correction should be planned.^18–20 Postacchini proposed that patients with neurogenic claudication and mild LBP could be treated with decompression only, however if axial pain was the predominant symptom or if there was significant deformity a fusion was recommended.^21,22 Nevertheless, although decompression alone has been shown to produce symptomatic relief for selected patients with neurogenic claudication and radicular symptoms, there is considerable literature documenting the risk of deformity progression and need for revision surgery due to the potential destabilizing nature of decompressive surgery alone.^7,17,22–25 Hence, this type of procedure should be reserved ideally for very select cases in which there is moderate to severe single- or two-level stenosis, highly comorbid patients who may not tolerate more invasive procedures and those with minimal or no global sagittal or coronal malalignment.²⁶

When determining the magnitude of fusion that will accompany decompressions, we found there was a consistent factor across all 9 articles included in this review: all of them strongly considered patient symptoms in order to define the appropriate surgical intervention. There were only 2 prospective studies and in both, the surgical decision was based on patient symptoms, with those having predominantly radicular symptoms or neurogenic claudication receiving a short-segment fusion and decompression, while patients with predominant low back pain or evidence of progressive deformity were treated with long-segment fusions.^13,16 The other 7 studies, though retrospective, also reported a similar tendency in which presence of axial back pain, taken as an indirect reflection of malalignment and deformity, favored larger procedures. This symptom-guided orientation is comparable to that proposed by Lenke-Silva, in which patients with predominantly stenosis symptomatology (Treatment Level II in their study) are considered for more limited interventions, especially if curves are <30° and in the setting of limited or no back pain.²⁷

Most of the studies revealed that patients in both short- and long-segment fusions groups had statistically significant improvement of symptoms after surgery. In 1 study, patients in the SSF group had significantly better ODI scores at the last follow-up than did patients in the LSF group (P < .005).¹⁶ However, baseline ODI scores were also much higher in the LSF group which could account for the postoperative difference, but no comparison was made regarding the change in ODI between groups. In the study by Transfeldt et al 1110 the LSF group had no significant improvement in their postoperative ODI scores and both SSF and LSF groups had insignificant changes in Roland Morris scores (RM). Nevertheless, there were no reports of spino-pelvic parameters to assess if there was any relation between correction and clinical improvement. Furthermore, patient satisfaction questionnaires revealed that most patients in both SSF and LSF cohorts considered surgery a success and the majority would have the same surgery again.

Evidence Supporting Short-Segment Fusions

Disc collapse, facet hypertrophy with instability and listhesis can produce foraminal stenosis with subsequent compression of the exiting nerve root; specially at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels which are the segments of maximum stress and mechanical loading.^9,28 Patients with mainly stenotic symptoms at these levels tend to be better candidates for smaller surgical treatments, and a limited decompression with fusion of the affected segment may be sufficient to alleviate pain and improve function, especially if the patient is sagitally aligned. Nonetheless, though the “symptom-based approach” seems to be crucial in determining optimal candidates for short fusions, the degree of desired correction needed to obtain “ideal” spinopelvic parameters should also be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, the heterogeneity of the included studies did not allow for statistically significant coronal or sagittal malalignment cut-off values to define which patients would ultimately benefit from shorter fusions. However, we did observe that the maximum ∆Cobb and ∆LL (baseline – postoperative) across the studies was nearly 15°. Furthermore, in the studies that did report baseline values, we observed a mean Cobb angle <30°, mean coronal vertical axis (CVA) < 30 mm, mean SVA <50 mm and mean PI-LL <35° (Table 4). These values are similar to previous reports in the literature supporting smaller constructs and could serve as the starting point for future matched cohort studies.

None of the studies included in the present review reported significant differences between the SSF and LSF groups with regard to patient comorbidities or overall health. Although this was not an explicit factor in determining the magnitude of surgery, since most of the studies included were retrospective, it is possible that patient health could still have impacted the decision at the point of care. Patient-related variables for risk assessment including age, BMI, cardiopulmonary conditions, smoking and osteoporosis have all been associated with perioperative complications, readmissions and mortality in patients undergoing surgery for adult scoliosis and should be considered prior to any intervention.^29–33

Of the 184 complications collectively reported in the included papers, 77 occurred in the SSF population (21% complication rate) and 107 in the LSF group (36% complication rate). All studies reported a tendency for higher complication rates with LSF constructs, and in 3 of them this difference was statistically significant.^9,14,15 5 studies reported significantly lower operative times for SSF,^8,11,14–16 and all 6 studies that included data regarding blood loss found that SSF was associated with less blood loss.^{8,9,11,14–16} 2 of the 4 studies that reported average length of hospital stay found SSF had a significant shorter stay after surgery.^9,11 This is supported by previous studies in the literature in which LSFs have been associated with lengthier operative times and greater blood loss, thus potentially increasing the incidence of morbidity and post-operative complications.^34–37 The association of blood loss and hospital stay with complications was also reported in a multicenter study by Schwab et al 3338 in which patients with reported complications had significantly greater blood loss (2.4 vs 1.6 L, P = .004) and longer hospital stay (14.4 vs 7.9 days, P = .001) than patients without complications. Considering that many patients with degenerative spinal disease are elderly and frequently afflicted by comorbidities, limited fusions could present an advantage over larger instrumentations in terms of lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay and fewer complications.

The potential benefits of short-segment decompression and fusion open a window of opportunity for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) which has been studied as an alternative to open interventions. There has been increasing evidence that MIS can be effective for the management of selected patients with ASD.^39–41 However, a limitation for MIS procedures remains the amount of correction that can be obtained. To help address the issue of under-correction of sagittal alignment, more recent MIS techniques including release of the anterior longitudinal ligament and use of hyperlordotic or expandable cages have been shown to obtain corrections of up to 17° per level.^42–44 Even though some studies comparing MIS and open surgery have shown no significant difference in terms of postoperative SVA between them, the mean correction was significantly greater for the latter group.^45,46 Anand and colleagues described the so called “ceiling effect” of MIS surgery and they found these interventions can be used in patients with an SVA of up to 89 mm, a PI-LL missmatch of 38° or less and a Cobb angle of up to 42°.⁴⁷ These results suggest that MIS may be a suitable option when patient selection is appropriate and only limited correction in terms of sagittal or coronal alignment is needed, which may be particularly relevant for SSFs.

Revision surgery and progression of scoliosis with SSF continue to be major concerns, especially if fixation stops at or near the scoliosis apex or in patients with adjacent segments that display early signs of degeneration and stenosis. A total of 114 revision surgeries were performed across the 9 studies (in some cases more than 1 per patient), 32 of them in the limited fusion group (revision rate of 8.7%) and mainly due to adjacent segment disease or pseudarthrosis; while patients in the long construct group (revision rate of 27.8%) usually required reinterventions due to proximal junction problems (PJK/PJF) and pseudarthrosis. Interestingly, Amara et al 999 found that even though SSF patients had a higher rate of extension surgery (26% [FC] vs 13% [LT] vs 4% [UT], P = .068), mostly related to progression of deformity and adjacent segment disease, the overall revision rate was similar and the non-extension revision rate was significantly lower than for LSF patients (P < .01).

The incidence of PJK and PJF was considerably higher in the population with longer constructs. Considering that the reported incidence of PJK is as high as 68% with revision rates as high as 55%, the rates of PJK in the present study are consistent with previously published data.^9,38,48–50 From a biomechanical stand point, longer fusions are more prone to develop this condition due to more extensive paraspinal muscle dissection, greater curvature corrections, increased posterior spinal ligament disruption, fusions that often extend to sacrum/pelvis and the sudden change in rigidity between instrumented and non-instrumented levels.^51,52 Only 1 paper analyzed the impact of constructs on stiffness using the lumbar stiffness disability index (LSDI) and found a mean score of 3.5 ± .5 in the LSF group, which was significantly higher than 1.4 ± .7 in the SSF group (P < .001).¹¹ This is consistent with findings by Hart and colleagues who found stiffness secondary to long fusions (≥3 levels) has been associated with limitations in daily activities and negative effects over range of motion; oddly enough, small fusions have been reported to produce an improvement in perception of mobility secondary to pain improvement.⁵³ Hence, smaller fusions may also be considered for active patients in whom their activity levels could be negatively affected by a longer and more rigid construct.

The flexibility of the spine above a fusion is a factor that affects not only deformity progression, but the risk of proximal junction complications as well, hence when thoracolumbar curves show stiffness (eg, bends to less than 30°) SSF may be considered as a viable option. However, even though this value and other factors including bone quality and the presence of kyphosis above the fused levels may qualitatively affect decision making, objective evidence is lacking and warrants further study to inform future recommendations.

In Favor of Long Fusion

There is now good evidence that patient-reported outcome measures correlate with sagittal alignment, thus pursuit of appropriate spino-pelvic parameters is considered 1 of the more important objectives in adult scoliosis surgery.^54–59 In particular, PI-LL mismatch, PT, and SVA are among the strongest radiographic predictors that correlate with surgical outcomes, disability and quality of life.^54,56,60 Bearing in mind their widely recognized influence, there are concerns regarding short fusions and their limitations for obtaining desired parameter goals. When examining the baseline parameters reported in the papers included in the present study, it is evident that in most of them, patients in the LSF group had significantly greater Cobb angles, PT, PI-LL missmatch and SVA, indicating these patients were substantially more coronally and sagitally malaligned than their SSF counterparts. Since most of the included studies were retrospective, 1 could conclude that the need for spinopelvic restoration likely impacted the extent of fusion, with more malaligned patients treated with more extensive surgeries, causing a selection bias for comparison purposes.

When axial mechanical pain is the main cause of concern for the patient, spinopelvic measures should be carefully assessed to determine if sagittal malalignment is a source of symptoms. Only 2 papers separately assessed improvement of radicular leg pain and low back pain after surgery and in both studies, patients had significant improvement of both leg and back pain after the procedure.^14,15 However, Li et al. found greater low back pain relief in the LSF group compared with the SSF population, which may be related to the improvement of spinopelvic parameters since there was a statistically significant difference in PT improvement between both groups.¹⁴ This is consistent with the Lenke-Silva classification in which greater back pain tends to be associated with greater malalignment and favors a more extensive procedure to obtain better global realignment.²⁷

Four studies reported significant increase between pre and postoperative lumbar lordosis angles in the LSF population,^10–12,14 and only 2 observed this change in the SSF patients.^11,12 3 papers documented postoperative PT being significantly lower with more extensive fusions,^11,12,14 and the 1 paper that compared PI-LL missmatch also favored longer constructs for its correction.⁹ These differences between the 2 groups of patients in both preoperative global alignment and the feasible correction that can be obtained with each type of intervention are critical factors when determining whether a patient may be a candidate for a SSF. In a study by Liu et al.⁶¹ LL was shown to significantly increase after long fusion surgeries with no significant change found if only 1 level was decompressed and fused. Other studies have also consistently reported this trend of correction, in which greater improvements in LL, PT, SVA have all been associated with multilevel decompression and fusion.^62–64 This is probably why longer fusions have been traditionally used for patients who present with SVA greater than 6 cm, if more than 30° of PI-LL missmatch needs to be corrected or Cobb angles >45° need to be addressed.^24,27,65,66 With regard to coronal radiographic changes, we found that across all included studies, longer fusions tended to provide greater corrections in terms of Cobb angle and CVA. Difference was statistically significant in 4 of the studies for the first (P < .05),^8–10,13 and in 2 for the latter (P < .03).^10,11

Degenerative curves seem to progress more rapidly than their adult idiopathic counterparts.^19,27 Furthermore, Cobb angles >30°, lateral subluxation >6 mm and apical rotation greater than Grade II, all often present in this population, are predictors of a more rapid curve progression.¹⁹ This may partly explain why patients treated with SSF tend to have a higher rate of extension surgery and reinterventions due to ASD while longer constructs avoid or at least slow down the progression by stabilizing the deformity. Considering short-segment fusions as the equivalent of Lenke-Silva Level II treatment population, we observed a relatively low adjacent segment stenosis rate compared with what was presented by Cheh and colleagues at the Scoliosis Research Society Annual Meeting in 2006, in which 14 (36%) out of the 39 level II patients developed adjacent segment stenosis after surgery. However, even if our observed ASD rate was low, it accounted for nearly 50% of the reoperation rate in this population and it is a frequently reported complication in the literature. Consequently, we believe patients presenting with major scoliotic curves and significant global malalignment, especially those showing signs of degeneration, stenosis or instability higher in the curve, should be considered for longer constructs in order to better achieve both age-adjusted sagittal alignment goals and help avoid progressive deformity and stenosis.⁵⁹

We observed that patients in the LSF cohort presented with greater baseline deformities, and had greater corrections in terms of SVA and postoperative lordosis, all of which have been associated with PJK.^67,68 However, proximal junction complications should not necessarily discourage extensive reconstructions for adult scoliosis since these have shown significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, despite the high complication rates.^22,69,70 Furthermore, strategies to help reduce these complications are currently available including age-adjusted parameter corrections and the use of tethers, neither of which were reported in the studies in the present analysis.^51,52,59 Also, the key to alignment research lie in the spinopelvic parameters and they were not consistently reported across all papers, which is 1 of the main limitations of our study.

Future Research

One of the main limitations of the present literature review was the lack of matched cohorts in terms of spinopelvic parameters, which precludes true direct comparison of the effectiveness of short-vs long-segment fusions in patients with adult scoliosis and conclusions can only be made regarding efficacy for the specific groups of patients that were ultimately selected for each procedure. Also, there was no consistent mention as to which levels were fused and emphasis was made only on the number of vertebrae included in the constructs. This lack of comparability between patient populations indicates a possible bias in patient selection which hampers objective recommendations. Furthermore, although there is evidence that patients with significant global malalignment would benefit from longer constructs, the cut-off values and parameters to select the intervention are yet to be determined.

Conclusion

Short- and long-segment fusions can achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes in patients with adult scoliosis as long as appropriate criteria, including patient symptoms, comorbidities and spinopelvic parameters, are used to carefully individualize the magnitude of surgery. Short-segment fusions have been shown to have less blood loss, shorter hospital stay and can significantly improve pain and functionality scores, but the amount of correction that can be achieved remains limited. The heterogeneous nature of the published data calls into question the reliability of these summative results, however ideal candidates for SSF may include patients with predominantly radicular or stenotic symptoms who lack significant coronal or sagittal malalignment, but the threshold spinopelvic baseline values are yet to be determined.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Determining the Magnitude of Surgery in Patients With Adult Scoliosis: A Systematic Review of the Role of Limited Fusions

Supplemental Material for Determining the Magnitude of Surgery in Patients With Adult Scoliosis: A Systematic Review of the Role of Limited Fusions by Juan Pablo Sardi, Bruno Lazaro, Thomas J. Buell, Chun Po Yen, Christopher Shaffrey, Sigurd Berven, and Justin S. Smith in Global Spine Journal

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This supplement was organized and financially supported by AO Spine through the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Deformity, a focused group of international Adult Spinal Deformity experts. AO Spine is a clinical division of the AO Foundation, which is an independent medically-guided not-for-profit organization. Support was provided directly through AO Network Clinical Research.

ORCID iD

Juan Pablo Sardi

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online

References

Ploumis

Transfeldt

Gilbert

Mehbod

Pinto

Denis

. Radiculopathy in degenerative lumbar scoliosis: correlation of stenosis with relief from selective nerve root steroid injections. Pain Med. 2011;12(1):45-50. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.01000.x

Kostuik

Israel

Hall

. Scoliosis surgery in adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1973;(93):225-234. doi:10.1097/00003086-197306000-00022

Birknes

White

Albert

Shaffrey

Harrop

. Adult degenerative scoliosis: a review. Neurosurgery. 2008;63(3 Suppl):94-103. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000325485.49323.B2

Youssef

Orndorff

Patty

, et al. Current status of adult spinal deformity. Global Spine J. 2013;3(1):51. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1326950

Passias

Jalai

Line

, et al. Patient profiling can identify patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) at risk for conversion from nonoperative to surgical treatment: initial steps to reduce ineffective ASD management. Spine J. 2018;18(2):234-244. S1529-9430(17)30318-2 [pii].

Teles

Mattei

Righesso

Falavigna

. Effectiveness of operative and nonoperative care for adult spinal deformity: systematic review of the literature. Global Spine J. 2017;7(2):170-178. doi:10.1177/2192568217699182

Aebi

. The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):925-948. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1053-9

Cho

Suk

Park

, et al. Short fusion versus long fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(5):650-656. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0615-z

Amara

Mummaneni

Ames

, et al. Treatment of only the fractional curve for radiculopathy in adult scoliosis: comparison to lower thoracic and upper thoracic fusions. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019:1-9. doi:10.3171/2018.9.SPINE18505

10.

Transfeldt

Topp

Mehbod

Winter

. Surgical outcomes of decompression, decompression with limited fusion, and decompression with full curve fusion for degenerative scoliosis with radiculopathy. Spine. 2010;35(20):1872-1875. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ce63a2

11.

Zhang

Yang

, et al. Short-segment decompression/fusion versus long-segment decompression/fusion and osteotomy for Lenke-Silva type VI adult degenerative scoliosis. Chine Medi Jour. 2019;132(21):2543-2549. doi:10.1097/CM9.0000000000000474

12.

Faldini

Di Martino

Borghi

Perna

Toscano

Traina

. Long vs. short fusions for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: does balance matters? Eur Spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 7):887-892. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4266-6

13.

Zeng

White

Albert

Chen

. Surgical strategy in adult lumbar scoliosis: the utility of categorization into 2 groups based on primary symptom, each with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine. 2012;37(9):556. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824af5c6

14.

Zhu

. Effectiveness of short-segment fixation versus long-segment fixation for degenerative scoliosis with Cobb angle 20Â°∼40Â°: A retrospective observational study. Med Sci Mon Int Med J Exp Clin Res. 2020;26:e923656. doi:10.12659/MSM.923656

15.

Kleinstueck

Fekete

Jeszenszky

Haschtmann

Mannion

. Adult degenerative scoliosis: Comparison of patient-rated outcome after three different surgical treatments. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(8):2649-2656. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3484-7

16.

Wang

Cui

Jiang

Liu

Sun

. Evaluation and surgical management of adult degenerative scoliosis associated with lumbar stenosis. Medicine. 2016;95(15):e3394. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000003394

17.

Berven

Kamper

Germscheid

, et al. An international consensus on the appropriate evaluation and treatment for adults with spinal deformity. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(3):585-596. doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5241-1

18.

Heary

Kumar

Bono

. Decision making in adult deformity. Neurosurgery. 2008;63(3 Suppl):69-77. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000320426.59061.79

19.

Pritchett

Bortel

. Degenerative symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. Spine. 1993;18(6):700-703. doi:10.1097/00007632-199305000-00004

20.

Liu

Chen

Jia

Song

. The clinical features and surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a review of 112 patients. Orthopa Surg. 2009;1(3):176-183. doi:10.1111/j.1757-7861.2009.00030.x

21.

Postacchini

. Surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1999;24(10):1043-1047. doi:10.1097/00007632-199905150-00020

22.

Berven

DiGiorgio

. The case for deformity correction in the management of radiculopathy with concurrent spinal deformity. Neurosurg Clin. 2017;28(3):341-347. (17)30033-5 [pii].S1042-3680

23.

Herkowitz

Kurz

. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. 1991;73(6):802-808.

24.

Houten

Nasser

. Symptomatic progression of degenerative scoliosis after decompression and limited fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(4):613-615. 00310-4 [pii].S0967-5868 12

25.

Frazier

Lipson

Fossel

Katz

. Associations between spinal deformity and outcomes after decompression for spinal stenosis. Spine 1997;22(17):2025-2029. doi:10.1097/00007632-199709010-00017

26.

Chen

Daubs

Berven

, et al. Surgery for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: The development of appropriateness criteria. Spine. 2016;41(10):910-918. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001392

27.

Silva

Lenke

. Adult degenerative scoliosis: Evaluation and management. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E1. doi:10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09271

28.

Hasegawa

Haughton

Nowicki

. Lumbar foraminal stenosis: Critical heights of the intervertebral discs and foramina. A cryomicrotome study in cadavera. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. 1995;77(1):32-38.

29.

Worley

Marascalchi

Jalai

, et al. Predictors of inpatient morbidity and mortality in adult spinal deformity surgery. Eur Spine J. Mar. 2016;25(3):819-827. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4104-x

30.

Schairer

Carrer

Deviren

, et al. Hospital readmission after spine fusion for adult spinal deformity. Spine 2013;38(19):1681-1689. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829c08c9

31.

Berman

Oren

Bendo

Spivak

. The effect of smoking on spinal fusion. Int J Spine Surg. 2017;11(4):29. doi:10.14444/4029

32.

Smith

Shaffrey

Glassman

, et al. Risk-benefit assessment of surgery for adult scoliosis: An analysis based on patient age. Spine. 2011;36(10):817-824. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e21783

33.

Passias

Poorman

Jalai

, et al. Morbidity of adult spinal deformity surgery in elderly has declined over time. Spine. 2017;42(16):E978-E982. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002009

34.

Carreon

Puno

Dimar

2nd Glassman

Johnson

. Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Nov. 2003;85(11):2089-2092. doi:10.2106/00004623-200311000-00004

35.

. Blood loss in adult spinal surgery. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(Suppl 1):S3-S5. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0753-x

36.

Olsen

Nepple

Riew

, et al. Risk factors for surgical site infection following orthopaedic spinal operations. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Jan. 2008;90(1):62-69. doi:10.2106/jbjs.F.01515

37.

Cho

Suk

Park

, et al. Complications in posterior fusion and instrumentation for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine 2007;32(20):2232-2237. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b2d3c

38.

Schwab

Hawkinson

Lafage

, et al. Risk factors for major peri-operative complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: A multi-center review of 953 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(12):2603-2610. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2370-4

39.

Park

Okonkwo

Nguyen

, et al.

Can a minimal clinically important difference be achieved in elderly patients with adult spinal deformity who undergo minimally invasive spinal surgery?

World Neurosurg. 2016;86:168-172. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.09.072

40.

Kanter

Tempel

Ozpinar

Okonkwo

. A review of minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine. 2016;41(Suppl 8):S59-S65. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000001481

41.

Mummaneni

Park

Shaffrey

, et al. The MISDEF2 algorithm: an updated algorithm for patient selection in minimally invasive deformity surgery. J Neurosurg: Spine SPI. 2020;32(2):221-228. doi:10.3171/2019.7.Spine181104

42.

Deukmedjian

Dakwar

Ahmadian

Smith

Uribe

. Early outcomes of minimally invasive anterior longitudinal ligament release for correction of sagittal imbalance in patients with adult spinal deformity. Sci World J. 2012;2012:789698. doi:10.1100/2012/789698

43.

Akbarnia

Mundis

Jr. Moazzaz

, et al. Anterior column realignment (ACR) for focal kyphotic spinal deformity using a lateral transpsoas approach and ALL release. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(1):29-39. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318287bdc1

44.

Uribe

Smith

Dakwar

, et al. Lordosis restoration after anterior longitudinal ligament release and placement of lateral hyperlordotic interbody cages during the minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach: a radiographic study in cadavers. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(5):476-485. doi:10.3171/2012.8.Spine111121

45.

Anand

Baron

Khandehroo

Kahwaty

. Long-term 2- to 5-year clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for adult scoliosis. Spine. 2013;38(18):1566-1575. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829cb67a

46.

Haque

Mundis

Jr. Ahmed

, et al. Comparison of radiographic results after minimally invasive, hybrid, and open surgery for adult spinal deformity: A multicenter study of 184 patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E13. doi:10.3171/2014.3.Focus1424

47.

Anand

Baron

Khandehroo

. Limitations and ceiling effects with circumferential minimally invasive correction techniques for adult scoliosis: analysis of radiological outcomes over a 7-year experience. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E14. doi:10.3171/2014.3.Focus13585

48.

Glattes

Bridwell

Lenke

Kim

Rinella

Edwards

2nd . Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine. 2005;30(14):1643-1649. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000169451.76359.49

49.

Kim

Bridwell

Lenke

Glattes

Rhim

Cheh

. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine. 2008;33(20):2179-2184. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817c0428

50.

Wang

Yang

, et al. Incidence and risk factors for the progression of proximal junctional kyphosis in degenerative lumbar scoliosis following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion. Medicine (Baltim). 2016;95(32):e4443. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000004443

51.

Yagi

Nakahira

Watanabe

Nakamura

Matsumoto

Iwamoto

. The effect of posterior tethers on the biomechanics of proximal junctional kyphosis: The whole human finite element model analysis. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):3433. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-59179-w

52.

Bess

Harris

Turner

, et al. The effect of posterior polyester tethers on the biomechanics of proximal junctional kyphosis: a finite element analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(1):125-133. doi:10.3171/2016.6.Spine151477

53.

Hart

Marshall

Hiratzka

Kane

Volpi

Hiratzka

. Functional limitations due to stiffness as a collateral impact of instrumented arthrodesis of the lumbar spine. Spine. 2014;39(24):E1468-E1474. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000595

54.

Glassman

Bridwell

Dimar

Horton

Berven

Schwab

. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine. 2005;30(18):2024-2029. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000179086.30449.96

55.

Ryan

Protopsaltis

Ames

, et al. T1 pelvic angle (TPA) effectively evaluates sagittal deformity and assesses radiographical surgical outcomes longitudinally. Spine. 2014;39(15):1203-1210. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000382

56.

Schwab

Blondel

Bess

, et al. Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: A prospective multicenter analysis. Spine. 2013;38(13):E803-E812. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318292b7b9

57.

Klineberg

Schwab

Smith

Gupta

Lafage

Bess

. Sagittal spinal pelvic alignment. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2013;24(2):157-162. doi:10.1016/j.nec.2012.12.003

58.

Lafage

Schwab

Patel

Hawkinson

Farcy

. Pelvic tilt and truncal inclination: two key radiographic parameters in the setting of adults with spinal deformity. Spine. 2009;34(17):E599-E606. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181aad219

59.

Lafage

Schwab

Glassman

, et al. Age-adjusted alignment goals have the potential to reduce PJK. Spine. 2017;42(17):1275-1282. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002146

60.

Schwab

Smith

Biserni

Gamez

Farcy

Pagala

. Adult scoliosis: A quantitative radiographic and clinical analysis. Spine. 2002;27(4):387-392. doi:10.1097/00007632-200202150-00012

61.

Liu

Wang

, et al.

An analysis of spinopelvic sagittal alignment after lumbar lordosis reconstruction for degenerative spinal diseases: how much balance can be obtained?

Spine. 2014;39(26 Spec):B52-B59. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000500

62.

Yson

Santos

Sembrano

Polly

Jr . Segmental lumbar sagittal correction after bilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(1):37-42. doi:10.3171/2012.4.Spine111013

63.

Ould-Slimane

Lenoir

Dauzac

, et al. Influence of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures on spinal and pelvic parameters of sagittal balance. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(6):1200-1206. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2124-8

64.

Chen

Wei

Ueyama

Xie

Sannohe

Liu

. Adjacent segment degeneration after single-segment PLIF: The risk factor for degeneration and its impact on clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(11):1946-1950. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1888-1

65.

Wang

Mummaneni

, et al. Less invasive surgery for treating adult spinal deformities: Ceiling effects for deformity correction with 3 different techniques. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E12. doi:10.3171/2014.3.Focus1423

66.

Mummaneni

Shaffrey

Lenke

, et al. The minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery algorithm: A reproducible rational framework for decision making in minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E6. doi:10.3171/2014.3.Focus1413

67.

Yagi

King

Boachie-Adjei

. Incidence, risk factors, and natural course of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Minimum 5 years of follow-up. Spine. 2012;37(17):1479-1489. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824e4888

68.

Kim

Bridwell

Lenke

, et al. Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis requiring revision surgery have higher postoperative lumbar lordosis and larger sagittal balance corrections. Spine. 2014;39(9):E576-E580. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000246

69.

Daubs

Lenke

Cheh

Stobbs

Bridwell

. Adult spinal deformity surgery: Complications and outcomes in patients over age 60. Spine. 2007;32(20):2238-2244. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814cf24a

70.

Sciubba

Scheer

Yurter

, et al. Patients with spinal deformity over the age of 75: A retrospective analysis of operative versus non-operative management. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(8):2433-2441. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3759-7