Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Objectives

To identify imaging predictors on pre- and perioperative imaging that are associated with a future revision surgery for adjacent segment disease (ASD) following lumbar fusion.

Methods

Patients undergoing open posterior lumbar fusion between 2014-2022 were followed-up for >2-year. The initial MRI was evaluated for disc degeneration by Pfirrmann (grade 1-5); Modic changes (0-3); as well as fatty infiltration and functional cross-sectional area (fCSA) of the multifidus, erector spinae, and psoas. Spinopelvic alignment was measured pre- and postoperatively.

Results

Of 216 patients, 14.8% (n = 32) required revision surgery for ASD in the further course. There were no significant differences in Modic changes or Pfirrmann grades between the ASD group and controls. Fatty infiltration was significantly higher in the ASD group for both the erector spinae (40.5% vs 36.9%, P = 0.043) and multifidus muscles (61.0% vs 53.9%, P = 0.003). Additionally, the multifidus fCSA was smaller in patients who developed ASD (5.7 cm² vs 6.7 cm²). Pre- and postoperative spinopelvic parameters were not significantly different between groups, and no other MRI measurements showed a significant difference. In a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for age and sex, multifidus fatty infiltration emerged as the only significant predictor of ASD revision surgery (P = 0.004). Patients with more than 58% multifidus fatty infiltration had over double the risk of developing ASD (OR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.1-6.5, P = 0.032).

Conclusions

Multifidus fatty infiltration is the key imaging predictor for the development of ASD requiring surgical revision. Disc degeneration and spinopelvic alignment appear to have less impact.

Keywords

adjacent segment disease reoperation spinal fusion paraspinal muscles intervertebral disc degeneration magnetic resonance imaging spinal alignment

Introduction

Adjacent segment disease (ASD), the degeneration of the segment adjacent to the instrumentation, is a common debilitating long-term sequela of spinal fusion and represents the primary indication for revision surgery.^1,2 Incidence of radiographic ASD ranges between 0% and 100%, with and annual and 10-year revision surgery rates of 2.5% and 22.2%, respectively.^3,4 The incidence of ASD is influenced by multiple factors, including ASD definition, pre-existing degeneration of adjacent discs, preoperative pathologies, surgical technique utilized, number of segments fused, and the follow-up period.⁵ Although not every ASD is of clinical relevance, if defined on a radiological basis, symptomatic ASD represents the major driver for worse patient-reported outcomes and revision surgery.⁶ These revision surgeries are not only undesirable for patients but also represent more challenging procedures with a higher complexity and risk profile than the index surgery.

Various factors have been associated with poor postoperative outcomes, including age, body mass index (BMI), frailty, osteoporosis, and sagittal imbalance.^7-9 Although radiographic spinopelvic alignment parameters have been well studied in association with ASD development, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers for patient-reported outcomes and complications after spinal fusion surgeries are less well understood. Some studies have indicated that preoperative disc and facet joint degeneration at levels adjacent to fusion sites are risk factors poor outcomes.¹⁰ In addition, paraspinal muscle status is increasingly being recognized as an important outcome predictor.¹¹ However, previous research has focused on the outcome of radiographic ASD and less on clinically relevant ASD, particularly those requiring revision surgery. Espacially, in-depth analysis of disc and paraspinal muscle status has not been conducted in relation to ASD revision surgery risk to date.

This study aimed to identify imaging predictors on pre- and perioperative imaging for surgically relevant ASD development following a primary lumbar fusion.

Methods

We hypothesized that adjacent segment-level disc degeneration, paraspinal muscle degeneration, and spinopelvic malalignment are associated with future ASD revision surgical procedures.

Patient Population

This is a retrospective cohort study of prospectively enrolled patients who underwent lumbar decompression or fusion surgery for degenerative conditions at a single spine unit between 2014 and 2022. All patients were followed up through a study-specific phone-call more than 2 years postoperatively. The phone call aimed to identify potential revision surgeries that may have been performed outside our institution. In addition, patient charts were retrospectively re-reviewed for potential revision procedures after the study-specific follow-up. Follow-up time was defined as the period from the index procedure to either the last clinical follow-up or the study-specific phone call. For patients who underwent revision surgery in the further course (extending the follow-up period), the follow-up time was measured from the index procedure to either the revision procedure or the study phone call. Patients were included in this study if they had an open posterior instrumentation, whereas decompression only, standalone anterior or lateral fusion procedures were not included. Further exclusion criteria included previous lumbar fusion, previous laminectomy, and missing or low-quality MRI. Patient characteristics, surgical details, and comorbidities including the five-factor frailty index (mFI-5) were retrieved from the hospital archiving system.¹² ASD revision surgery was defined as any procedure adjacent to the primary instrumentation construct, including decompression alone, as well as decompression and fusion instrumentation for disc collapse, listhesis, herniations, and central and foraminal stenosis. The hospital’s institutional review board (IRB) approved this study (#2019-2137). Written and informed consent to participate in this study and to publish their data was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The reporting was in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

MRI Assessment

Preoperative MRI was performed prior to the primary lumbar fusion procedure. Disc degeneration according to Pfirrmann (grades 1-5)¹³ and Modic changes (0-3)¹⁴ was analyzed on all lumbar segments, as well as the proximal adjacent (herein referred to as the adjacent segment), upper and lower instrumented segments (Figure 1). For instance, in a two-level fusion procedure from L4-S1, the adjacent segment was considered L3/4, the upper instrumented segment L4/5, and the lower instrumented segment L5/S1. Consequently, in single-level procedures, the upper and lower instrumented segments were the same segments. Paraspinal muscle measurements were conducted on axial slices parallel to and at the level of the upper endplate of L4 using ITK SNAP version 3.8.0 software (https://www.itksnap.org/)¹⁵ (Figure 2). Multifidus, erector spinae, and psoas muscles were segmented using dedicated software (MuscleEval). The fat area within the segmented muscle was determined using a previously described method employing custom software (MATLAB version R2019a, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA). This software utilizes automated pixel intensity thresholding to classify pixels as either fat or muscle, based on whether they fall above or below the threshold.¹⁶ The cross-sectional (CSA) of each muscle was divided into muscle area = functional CSA (fCSA) and fat area (CSA_fat). The percentages of fatty infiltration of each paraspinal muscle were measured and defined as fatty infiltration = CSA_fat/(fCSA + CSA_fat).

Figure 1.

MRI measurements. Pfirrmann grades (I-V), and Modic changes (M0-M3) were measured on the preoperative MRI (a&b). The postoperative sagittal and coronal postoperative radiograph (c&d) shows the definition of the adjacent segment (AS), upper instrumented segment (UIS) and lower instrumented segment (LIS).

Figure 2.

Paraspinal muscles measurement. (a) T2-axial slices at the upper endplate of L4 were evaluated. (b) The psoas (red and green), erector spinae (blue and yellow) and multifidus (turquoise and pink) were assessed. c) With dedicated software, the functional component (black) and fat component (green) were segmented, to measure the functional cross-sectional area and percentage fatty infiltration of each muscle.

Radiographic Measurements of Sagittal Balance

The sagittal balance was assessed on the last preoperative and on the first postoperative radiographs, on which the femoral heads were displayed. The following parameters were evaluated and compared between groups: pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, pelvic-incidence lumbar lordosis mismatch (=PI-LL-mismatch),¹⁷ pelvic tilt, sacral slope, distal lumbar lordosis between upper endplate L4 and sacral endplate (=L4-S1-lordosis),¹⁸ lordosis distribution index (=L4-S1 lordosis / lumbar lordosis) and lumbar pelvic angle (LPA).¹⁹

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA (STATA/BE 18.0, Stata Corp LLC, TX, USA). The Shapiro–Wilk test was performed to assess normal distribution. Means ± standard deviations represent normally distributed parameters. The medians with interquartile ranges shown in square brackets represent non-normally distributed data. Differences in central tendencies and variances between ASD and control patients were analyzed using Student’st test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Univariate logistic regression was performed with ASD revision surgery as the dependent variable. Imaging variables with a P-value <0.05 in univariate analysis or group comparisons were included in a linear regression model to assess potential covariates, followed by a multivariable logistic regression model. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to identify optimal cutoff values for independent predictors, which were then re-evaluated in a multivariate regression model. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.

Results

In this study, 269 patients were prospectively enrolled between 2014 and 2022, of whom 237 (88.1%) were followed-up over a phone call after a minimum of 2 years and a median follow-up of 4 years (Figure 3). Due to missing or poor-quality preoperative MRIs, 21 patients were excluded, leaving 216 patients (80.3%) for analysis. The median age at time of primary surgery was 66 [58-74] years, 55.6% were female, and BMI was 28.9 kg/m² [25.1-33.0]). The median number of fused segments was 1 [1-2], ranging between 1 and 4 levels, and the follow-up time was 45 [28-72] months. 93.6% of the procedures included the L4/5 (81.9%) and/or L5/S1 (45.8%) levels.

Figure 3.

Study flow chart.

In total, 38 lumbar revision procedures (17.6%) were performed during the follow-up period. Of these, 32 patients (14.8%) required revision surgery for ASD, the majority being proximal ASD (n = 28), with 2 cases of distal ASD and 2 cases involving both proximal and distal ASD. The median time between the primary fusion and ASD revision surgery was 32 months [IQR 17-57]. Revision surgeries involved decompression alone in 12.5% (n = 4) of cases and decompression with fusion extension in 87.5% (n = 26) (Figure 4). Additional revision procedures included screw loosening and pseudarthrosis in 2 patients, irrigation and debridement for hematoma or seroma in 2 patients, a mechanical complication with screw-rod disintegration in 1 patient, and restenosis requiring revision decompression in 1 patient. Patients undergoing revision for ASD were categorized into the ASD group, while those without revision or with revision for other reasons were assigned to the control group. No significant differences in patient characteristics, comorbidities, surgical levels, or follow-up duration were found between the ASD and control groups (Table 1).

Figure 4.

Patient example who developed adjacent segment disease (ASD) and had to be reoperated. 30 months postoperative follow-up radiograph (a) and MRI (b)-(d) of the patient illustrated in Fig. 1 after L3-S1 fusion who developed a surgically relevant ASD at L2/3 with disc collapse and protrusion, resulting in central and foraminal stenosis. (e)/(f) The patient was reoperated with a standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion at that ASD level L2/3.

Table 1.

Patient Demographics.

	Control (n = 184)	ASD (n = 32)	P-value
Age (years)	66 (57-72)	66 (61-70)	0.686^a
Sex (female %)	54.4	62.5	0.392^b
BMI (kg/m²)	28.7 (25.0-33.0)	29.9 (26.3-34.2)	0.523^a
Tobacco use (%)	7.6	6.3	1.000^c
Osteoporosis (%)	16.9	18.8	0.792^b
mFI-5 frailty index	1 (0-1)	1 (0-1)	0.725^a
Hypertension (%)	42.4	51.6	0.338^b
CHF (%)	1.1	0.0	0.732^c
COPD (%)	4.9	3.2	0.563^c
Diabetes (%)	6.5	3.2	0.698^c
Numer of levels fused	1 (1-2)	1 (1-2)	0.965^a
Fusion incl. L1/2 (%)	0.5	0	1.000^c
Fusion incl. L2/3 (%)	9.2	6.3	0.746^c
Fusion incl. L3/4 (%)	27.2	25.0	0.798^c
Fusion incl. L4/5 (%)	82.7	81.3	0.912^b
Fusion incl. L5/S1 (%)	44.6	53.1	0.370^b
Follow-up (months)	43 (27-71)	48 (29-72)	0.790^a

Median and interquartile ranges are shown for continuous variables (all non-normally distributed), proportions for binary values. P-values calculation with Mann-Whitney U, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.

^aMann-Whitney-U.

^bChi-square.

^cFisher’s exact.

MRI Measurements

Pfirrmann disc degeneration grades were similar in the ASD and control groups, with a non-significant trend toward greater degeneration in the lower instrumented segment in the ASD group (OR. 1.39, P = 0.282) (Table 2). Pfirrmann grades at the adjacent segment did not differ significantly between the groups, nor were any differences found in Modic changes. Fatty infiltration of the multifidus and erector spinae muscles was higher in patients who developed ASD (multifidus: 61% vs 54%, P = 0.003; erector spinae: 41% vs 37%, P = 0.043), while multifidus fCSA was smaller in the ASD group (5.7 cm² vs 6.7 cm², P = 0.030) (Figure 5). The fCSA of the erector spinae did not differ significantly between groups, nor did any muscle measurements for the psoas. Univariate logistic regression confirmed a positive correlation between fatty infiltration of the posterior paraspinal muscles and ASD development, with an OR of 1.04 per percentage increase in fatty infiltration, and a negative correlation between multifidus fCSA and ASD development (OR 0.84) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Univariate Logistic Regression Analysis for MRI Predictors of ASD Revision Surgery.

	Control (n = 184)	ASD (n = 32)	OR	[95% CI]	P-value
Pfirrmann
L1/2	3 (2-3)	3 (2-4)	1.183	[0.805, 1.737]	0.392
L2/3	3 (3-4)	3 (3-4)	1.076	[0.730, 1.585]	0.710
L3/4	4 (3-4)	4 (3-4)	1.052	[0.682, 1.621]	0.820
L4/5	4 (4-5)	4 (4-5)	1.309	[0.785, 2.183]	0.301
L5/S1	4 (3-5)	4 (3-5)	0.943	[0.621, 1.430]	0.781
Adjacent segment	3 (3-4)	3 (3-4)	0.966	[0.609, 1.531]	0.882
Upper instrumented	4 (4-5)	4 (4-5)	1.149	[0.637, 2.074]	0.645
Lower instrumented	4 (4-5)	5 (4-5)	1.393	[0.761, 2.547]	0.282
Modic changes
L1/2	0 (0-0)	0 (0-0)	1.571	[0.516, 4.784]	0.427
L2/3	0 (0-0)	0 (0-0)	1.559	[0.828, 2.936]	0.170
L3/4	0 (0-0)	0 (0-0)	0.891	[0.386, 2.053]	0.786
L4/5	1 (0-1)	1 (0-1.5)	1.101	[0.637, 1.903]	0.731
L5/S1	0 (0-1)	0 (0-1.5)	1.331	[0.894, 1.983]	0.161
Adjacent segment	0 (0-0)	0 (0-0)	1.072	[0.360, 3.188]	0.901
Upper instrumented	1 (0-1)	1 (0-1)	1.071	[0.616, 1.860]	0.809
Lower instrumented	1 (0-1)	1 (0-1)	1.187	[0.733, 1.924]	0.488
Muscle measurements
Erector spinae fCSA (cm²)	22.5 (18.1-29.6)	19.7 (15.0-27.6)	0.970	[0.924 1.019]	0.223
Erector spinae FI (%)	36.9 (30.6-45.0)	40.5 (33.5-50.5)	1.035	[1.001, 1.070]	0.043
Multifidus fCSA (cm²)	6.7 (5.1-8.8)	5.7 (4.0-7.9)	0.842	[0.720, 0.984]	0.030
Multifidus FI (%)	53.9 (43.7-62.2)	61.0 (50.1-71.6)	1.044	[1.015, 1.075]	0.003
Psoas fCSA (cm²)	18.9 (14.6-26.6)	18.2 (16.6-26.1)	0.996	[0.951, 1.044]	0.879
Psoas FI (%)	5.1 (2.7-8.3)	4.4 (3.4-6.3)	0.955	[0.873, 1.045]	0.316

Median and interquartile ranges are shown (all data non-normally distributed). Adjacent segment = first segment cranial to instrumentation. P-values calculated with unadjusted logistic regression. Significant values (P < 0.05) are in bold.

Figure 5.

Boxplot of muscle measurements.

Radiographic Measurement of Sagittal Balance

None of the measured pre- and postoperative spinopelvic parameters were associated with a future ASD revision surgery (Table 3).

Table 3.

Univariate Logistic Regression for Sagittal Balance Predictors of ASD Revision Surgery.

	Control (n = 184)	ASD (n = 32)	OR	[95% CI]	P-value
Pelvic incidence
Preoperative	57 ± 10	58 ± 11	1.008	[0.973, 1.045]	0.649
Postoperative	57 ± 11	58 ± 11	1.01	[0.974, 1.046]	0.595
Lumbar lordosis
Preoperative	49 ± 14	53 ± 13	1.025	[0.996, 1.054]	0.097
Postoperative	47 ± 13	50 ± 15	1.014	[0.985, 1.045]	0.341
PI-LL
Preoperative	8 ± 13	5 ± 11	0.977	[0.947, 1.008]	0.142
Postoperative	9 ± 11	8 ± 11	0.99	[0.957, 1.023]	0.545
Pelivic tilt
Preoperative	22 ± 8	22 ± 6	1.0	[0.952, 1.05]	0.987
Postoperative	23 ± 7	23 ± 7	1.005	[0.953, 1.06]	0.846
Sacral slope
Preoperative	35 ± 9	36 ± 8	1.012	[0.971, 1.056]	0.566
Postoperative	34 ± 8	35 ± 8	1.01	[0.965, 1.057]	0.675
L4-S1 lordosis
Preoperative	23 ± 9	27 ± 7	1.039	[0.997, 1.083]	0.068
Postoperative	26 ± 8	27 ± 7	1.039	[0.978, 1.076]	0.289
LDI (%)
Preoperative	50 ± 35	52 ± 13	1.039	[0.379, 3.154]	0.869
Postoperative	60 ± 49	58 ± 19	0.898	[0.343, 2.353]	0.826
LPA
Preoperative	14 ± 7	12 ± 6	0.956	[0.904, 1.011]	0.117
Postoperative	14 ± 7	14 ± 7	1.001	[0.947, 1.059]	0.970

PI-LL = Pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis-mismatch. LPA = Lumbar pelvic angle. LDI = Lordosis distribution index. Median and interquartile ranges are shown for non-normally distributed data, mean and standard deviation for normally distributed data. P-values calculation with univariable logistic regression.

Imaging Predictors for ASD Revision

Group comparisons and univariate logistic regression identified 3 imaging factors associated with ASD development: (1) fatty infiltration of the erector spinae, (2) fatty infiltration of the multifidus, and (3) multifidus fCSA. Multivariable linear regression analyses identified age and sex as key covariates in a prediction model for ASD revision based on paraspinal muscle degeneration (Table 4). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age and sex, multifidus fatty infiltration emerged as the only significant independent predictor of future ASD revision surgery (P = 0.004) (Table 5). The OR of 1.05 [95% CI: 1.02-1.09] indicates that the relative risk of ASD revision surgery increases by 5% for every percentage increase in fatty infiltration. In this model, fatty infiltration of the erector spinae and multifidus fCSA did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.085 and P = 0.054, respectively).

Table 4.

Linear Regression Analysis of Patient Demographics Predicting Paraspinal Muscle Degeneration.

	Coefficient	95% CI	P-value
Erector spinae fatty infiltration
Age	0.39	[0.26 – 0.51]	0.000
Female sex	3.75	[1.06 – 6.45]	0.007
BMI	0.27	[0.04 – 0.50]	0.019
mFI-5 frailty index	0.07	[-2.21 – 2.35]	0.957
Multifidus fatty infiltration
Age	0.66	[0.51 – 0.82]	0.000
Female sex	8.43	[5.15 – 11.70]	0.000
BMI	0.05	[-0.22 – 0.33]	0.714
mFI-5 frailty index	−0.27	[-3.65– 2.50]	0.844
Multifidus fCSA
Age	−0.10	[-0.14 – (−)0.07]	0.000
Female sex	−2.28	[-3.00 – (−)1.57]	0.000
BMI	0.05	[-0.01 – 0.11]	0.090
mFI-5 frailty index	−0.11	[-0.71– 0.49]	0.704

OR = Odds ratio. CI = Confidence Interval. LIS = lower instrumented segment. Total = muscle as total of left and right side. Lesser / Greater = muscle on side with lower / higher values. p-values calculated with univariable linear regression. Significant values (P < 0.05) are in bold.

Table 5.

Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis of Muscle Parameters Predicting ASD Revision Surgery.

	OR	95% CI	P-value
Erector spinae fatty infiltration	1.03	[1.00 – 1.07]	0.085
Age	1.00	[0.96 – 1.04]	0.906
Sex	1.24	[0.56 – 2.72]	0.599
Multifidus fatty infiltration	1.05	[1.02 – 1.09]	0.004
Age	0.98	[0.94 – 1.03]	0.451
Sex	0.95	[0.42 – 2.16]	0.899
Multifidus fCSA	0.84	[0.70 – 1.00]	0.054
Age	0.999	[0.96 – 1.04]	0.975
Sex	0.97	[0.42 –2.25]	0.952

OR = Odds ratio. CI = Confidence Interval. LIS = lower instrumented segment. Total = muscle as total of left and right side. Lesser / Greater = muscle on side with lower / higher values. P-values calculated with univariable binary logistic regression. Significant values (P < 0.05) are in bold.

ROC Analysis

ROC analysis for multifidus fatty infiltration revealed an AUC of 0.648 for total fatty infiltration (Figure 6). A cut-off value of 58.3% was determined, with 59.4% sensitivity and 64.1% specificity for predicting ASD revision in this cohort. When applying this cut-off value in the multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age and sex, multifidus fatty infiltration ≥58.0% was found to be a significant predictor of ASD revision surgery (OR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.1-6.5, P = 0.032) (Table 6).

Figure 6.

ROC analysis of multifidus fatty infiltration.

Table 6.

Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis for Categorical Multifidus Degeneration Predicting ASD Revision Surgery.

	OR	95% CI	P-value
Multifidus fatty infiltration >58%	2.67	[1.09 – 6.50]	0.032
Age	1.00	[0.96 – 1.04]	0.885
Sex	1.02	[0.45 – 2.34]	0.962

OR = Odds ratio. CI = Confidence Interval. LIS = lower instrumented segment. Total = muscle as total of left and right side. Lesser / Greater = muscle on side with lower / higher values. P-values calculated with multivariable logistic regression. Significant values (P < 0.05) are in bold.

Discussion

This study elucidates preoperative and perioperative imaging factors that predict the development of surgically relevant ASD following elective lumbar fusion surgery. In our study cohort with a median follow-up of 4 years, the incidence of surgical ASD was 14.8%, which aligns with previously published reports.^4,20 In contrast to previous research, our study specifically investigated clinically relevant ASD that necessitated a revision surgiery. The key finding is that fatty infiltration of the posterior paraspinal muscles, particularly the multifidus, is the strongest predictor of surgically relevant ASD.

Disc Degeneration and Modic Changes

In this study, disc degeneration and Modic changes were evaluated at both the operated and adjacent levels. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found no significant association between preoperative degeneration of the adjacent disc and future ASD requiring revision surgery. This is in line with Takeda et al.,⁵ who also found no linke between radiological ASD and Pfirrmann grades at the adjacent level before elective L5-S1 fusion. In contrast, Kiss et al²¹ found a correlation between higher Pfirrmann scores in adjacent discs on the initial MRI and ASD. Differences in study design, settings, and especially ASD definitions, such as loss of disc height or segmental lordosis in their study and revision surgery for ASD in our study, may account for this disparity. In our study, Pfirrmann grades of the adjacent disc did not differ, but a trend toward higher degeneration in the operated levels were found in patients undergoing a future ASD Revision surgery (P = 0.282). Although not significant, our results may indicate that the degenerative cascade occurring in the lower lumbar spine translates to adjacent segments once the segments are fixed. Meanwhile, the initial extent of MRI-evident degeneration in the adjacent segments may have less influence on ASD onset.

Paraspinal Muscle

Impaired muscle health has been increasingly recognized as a marker of frailty, decreased quality of life, and adverse perioperative outcomes.¹¹ Although the muscle volume of the psoas is commonly used as a reference to measure the general muscle status or sarcopenia, spine-specific sarcopenia, as determined on posterior spinal muscles, is increasingly recognized in spine research.^22,23 However, literature on paraspinal muscle assessment is scarce in the context of ASD and revision surgery.

Kim et al.²⁴ investigated fatty infiltration and CSA of the psoas and posterior paraspinal muscles (multifidus and erector spinae combined) and found a significant association between radiological ASD and a decreased CSA and increased fatty infiltration in the paraspinal muscles. However, only a few patients had symptomatic ASD and required surgery in their study. Our study on surgically relevant ASD mirrors their findings that fatty infiltration of the posterior paraspinal muscles is an important factor in ASD development. Furthermore, we demonstrated that fatty infiltration of the multifidus plays a more important role than the erector spinae in ASD development.

Gong et al.²⁵ also found that multifidus fatty infiltration as well as CSA of the multifidus were risk factors for ASD, which they defined on a radiographic basis. Our study highlights the importance of paraspinal muscle assessment in clinically relevant ASD development, particularly for multifidus fatty infiltration. The significant difference in multifidus fatty infiltration between the ASD and control groups suggests that alterations in the muscular envelope surrounding the lumbar spine may contribute to ASD pathogenesis. The multifidus, acting as a segmental stabilizer, may play a crucial role in preventing excessive stress on adjacent segments.²⁶

Spinopelvic Alignment

The secondary objective of this study was to assess spinopelvic alignment parameters in association with surgically relevant ASD development. Against our hypothesis and previous literature, the spinopelvic parameters were not associated with ASD in our cohort.¹⁸ This may be attributed to the fact that our patient cohort did not include any major deformity surgery, but were mostly 1-2 level fusion procedures for degenerative disease in the lower lumbar spine. Although our study indicates that other radiologic factors, beyond the traditional radiographic spinal sagittal alignment measurements are even more important for successful long-term outcomes, we do believe that an optimal alignment should always be targeted intraoperatively as much as possible. A functioning paraspinal muscle envelope is crucial for the rehabilitation post-surgery as well as for a physiologic load distribution on the instrumented and adjacent segments. Thus, preservation of multifidus fibers, particularly of fibers attached to the adjacent vertebrae, should be attempted during every fusion procedure. Paraspinal muscle-sparing, minimally-invasive techniques may further show more advantageous ASD risk profiles.²⁷

Clinicians should recognize that patients with a significant degree of multifidus fatty infiltration (ie, >58%) are at an increased risk for subsequent revision surgery due to ASD. Therefore, it is essential to assess the paraspinal muscles, especially the multifidus, alongside the disc, neural, and bony structures. The findings of our study can aid in patient counseling and surgical decision-making, particularly when dealing with patients who have increased risk profiles based on their characteristics and MRI results. While this study demonstrates an association between preoperative paraspinal muscle degeneration and ASD development, the extent of muscle degeneration that occurs post-surgery—whether due to the surgical approach, muscle fiber detachment, disinnervation, or segment immobilization—remains unknown and is currently being investigated. It is possible that less-invasive, muscle-sparing fusion techniques may present a better risk profile for ASD development compared to open posterior fusion surgery. However, the choice of surgical strategy or approach was not the focus of this manuscript and is part of a separate ongoing study by our group. Additionally, the role of paraspinal muscle degeneration in determining the surgical technique, approach, and selection of upper and lower instrumented vertebrae is still unclear. Primary care physicians and spine specialists should emphasize the importance of preventing sarcopenia progression through regular exercise and a balanced diet.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that must be considered. In the prospectively enrolled cohort, 11.9% of patients did not have a 2-year minimum follow-up and another 7.8% were excluded due to missing MRI or low-quality MRI. Thus, only 80.3% of the patients of interest could be included for analysis, which may have introduced some selection bias. Moreover, the test accuracy of the cutoff values to detect the risk for future ASD revision applies to the cohort investigated in this study and would need to be validated with independent patient cohorts. Although multifidus fatty infiltration was the only independent imaging predictor of ASD, its sensitivity and specificity was moderate to low, indicating that other factors, beyond imaging markers may play a role in ASD development as well. Future multicenter studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are warranted to validate our findings and to further elucidate the underlying mechanisms that drive ASD development following lumbar fusion surgery.

Conclusion

Preoperative atrophy of the posterior paraspinal muscle is associated with a future ASD revision surgery, with fatty infiltration of the multifidus being the key imaging predictor. In contrast, the severity of disc degeneration at the operated and adjacent segments, as well as spinopelvic alignment, appear to be less influential in short-segment fusions. Assessment of not only bone, disc, and neural structures, but also of the surrounding muscular envelope on MRI, may be key for improved patient counseling and surgical decision-making.

Footnotes

Author contributions

\All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Marco D. Burkhard, Erika Chiapparelli, Ali E. Guven, Krizia Amoroso, and Jiaqi Zhu. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Marco D. Burkhard and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: AAS reports royalties from Ortho Development, Corp. DePuy Spine Products/Medical Device Business Services, Clariance, Inc.; private investments for Vestia Ventures MiRUS Investment, LLC, ISPH II, LLC, ISPH 3, LLC, and Centinel Spine (Vbros Venture Partners V); consulting fees from DePuy Spine Products/Medical Device Business Services, Clariance, Inc., Kuros Biosciences AG; speaking and/or teaching arrangements for DePuy Spine Products/Medical Device Business Services; membership of scientific advisory board of DePuy Spine Products/Medical Device Business Services, Kuros Biosciences AG, Clariance, Inc., and research support from Spinal Kinetics, Inc./Orthofix, Inc., outside the submitted work. FPC reports royalties from Accelus; ownership interest for 4WEB Medical/4WEB, Inc.; Healthpoint Capital Partners, LP; ISPH II, LLC; ISPH 3 Holdings, LLC; Ivy Health care Capital Partners, LLC; Medical Device Partners II, LLC; Medical Device Partners III, LLC; Orthobond Corporation; Spine Biopharma, LLC; Tissue Differentiation Intelligence, LLC; Tissue Connect Systems, Inc.; VBVP VI, LLC; VBVP X, LLC; Woven Orthopedics Technologies; consulting fees from Spine Biopharma, LLC, and Accelus; membership of scientific advisory board/other office of Healthpoint Capital Partners, Medical Device Partners II, LLC, Orthobond Corporation, Spine Biopharma, LLC, and Woven Orthopedic Technologies; and research support from 4WEB Medical/4WEB, Inc., Camber Spine, Choice Spine, DePuy Synthes, Centinel Spine, and Royal Biologics outside the submitted work. FPG reports royalties from Lanx, Inc. And Ortho Development Corp.; ownership interest in Centinel Spine, BICMD; consulting fees from Lanx, Inc, Ortho Development Corp, and Sea Spine;and stock ownership in Centinel Spine, Healthpoint Capital Partners, LP; membership of scientific advisory board/other office of Healthpoint Capital Partners, outside the submitted work. APH reports research support from Kuros Biosciences AG and Expanding Innovations, Inc.; private investments in Tissue Connect Systems, Inc.; and fellowship support from NuVasive, Inc., Globus Medical North America, Inc., and Alphatec Spine, Inc., outside the submitted work.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Marco D. Burkhard

Paul Köhli

Ali E. Guven

Lukas Schönnagel

Krizia Amoroso

Gisberto Evangelisti

Andrew A. Sama

Alexander P. Hughes

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.*

References

Cummins

Hindoyan

, et al. Reoperation and mortality rates following elective 1 to 2 level lumbar fusion: a large state database analysis. Global Spine J. 2022;12(8):1708-1714. doi:10.1177/2192568220986148

Mok

Cloyd

Bradford

, et al. Reoperation after primary fusion for adult spinal deformity: rate, reason, and timing. Spine. 2009;34(8):832-839. doi:10.1097/BRS.0B013E31819F2080

Nakashima

Kawakami

Tsuji

, et al. Adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: based on cases with a minimum of 10 Years of follow-up. Spine. 2015;40(14):E831-E841. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000917

Sears

Sergides

Kazemi

Smith

White

Osburg

. Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis. Spine J. 2011;11(1):11-20. doi:10.1016/J.SPINEE.2010.09.026

Takeda

Okada

Shinozaki

, et al. Risk factors for early-onset radiographical adjacent segment disease in patients with spondylolytic spondylolisthesis after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2022;22(7):1112-1118. doi:10.1016/J.SPINEE.2022.02.001

Galetta

Lorentz

Lan

, et al. Reoperation rates due to adjacent segment disease following primary 1 to 2-level minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2023;48(18):1295-1299. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004645

Ogiri

Nishida

Park

Rossi

. Systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the clinical outcomes of spine surgeries in patients with concurrent osteoporosis. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2023;7(3):200-210. doi:10.22603/SSRR.2022-0198

Bowers

Varela

Conlon

, et al. Comparison of the Risk Analysis Index and the modified 5-factor frailty index in predicting 30-day morbidity and mortality after spine surgery. J Neurosurg. 2023;39(1):136-145. doi:10.3171/2023.2.SPINE221019

Rothenfluh

Mueller

Rothenfluh

Min

. Pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch predisposes to adjacent segment disease after lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(6):1251-1258. doi:10.1007/S00586-014-3454-0/METRICS

10.

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

11.

Hirase

Haghshenas

Bratescu

, et al. Sarcopenia predicts perioperative adverse events following complex revision surgery for the thoracolumbar spine. Spine J. 2021;21(6):1001-1009. doi:10.1016/J.SPINEE.2021.02.001

12.

Subramaniam

Aalberg

Soriano

Divino

. New 5-factor modified frailty index using American college of surgeons NSQIP data. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;226(2):173-181. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.11.005

13.

Pfirrmann

CWA

Metzdorf

Zanetti

Hodler

Boos

. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine. 2001;26(17):1873-1878. doi:10.1097/00007632-200109010-00011

14.

Modic

Steinberg

Ross

Masaryk

Carter

. Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;166(1 Pt 1):193-199. doi:10.1148/RADIOLOGY.166.1.3336678

15.

Muellner

Chiapparelli

Haffer

, et al. The association between paraspinal muscle parameters and vertebral pedicle microstructure in patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. Int Orthop. 2023;47(4):1051-1060. doi:10.1007/S00264-022-05659-9

16.

Schönnagel

Zhu

Camino-Willhuber

, et al. Relationship between lumbar spinal stenosis and axial muscle wasting. Spine J. 2024;24(2):231-238. doi:10.1016/J.SPINEE.2023.09.020

17.

Schwab

Lafage

Patel

Farcy

. Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. , 2009;34(17):1828-1833.

18.

Manoharan

Cherry

Raj

, et al. Distal lumbar lordosis is associated with reoperation for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Global Spine J. 2024;14:21925682241262704. doi:10.1177/21925682241262704

19.

Protopsaltis

Lafage

Smith

, et al. The lumbar pelvic angle, the lumbar component of the T1 pelvic angle, correlates with HRQOL, PI-ll mismatch, and it predicts global alignment. Spine. 2018;43(10):681-687. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002346

20.

Cannizzaro

Anania

Safa

, et al. Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration after spinal fusion surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Sci. 2023;67(6):740-749. doi:10.23736/S0390-5616.22.05891-X

21.

Kiss

Szoverfi

Bereczki

, et al. Impact of patient-specific factors and spinopelvic alignment on the development of adjacent segment degeneration after short-segment lumbar fusion. Clin Spine Surg. 2023;36(7):E306-E310. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001369

22.

Schönnagel

Guven

Camino-Willhuber

, et al. Examining the role of paraspinal musculature in post-operative disability after lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2024;49:997-1003. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004840

23.

Schönnagel

Chiaparelli

Camino-Willhuber

, et al. Spine-specific sarcopenia: distinguishing paraspinal muscle atrophy from generalized sarcopenia. Spine J. 2024;24:1211-1221. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.02.021

24.

Kim

Ryu

Paik

, et al. Paraspinal muscle, facet joint, and disc problems: risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion. Spine J. 2016;16(7):867-875. doi:10.1016/J.SPINEE.2016.03.010

25.

Gong

Zou

Liu

Wang

. Low lumbar multifidus muscle status and bone mineral density are important risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion: a case-control study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):490. doi:10.1186/S13018-022-03388-8

26.

Malakoutian

Street

Wilke

, et al. Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(9):2929-2937. doi:10.1007/S00586-016-4686-Y

27.

Lee

Yoon

. Which approach is advantageous to preventing development of adjacent segment disease? Comparative analysis of 3 different lumbar interbody fusion techniques (ALIF, LLIF, and PLIF) in L4-5 spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg. 2017;105:612-622. doi:10.1016/J.WNEU.2017.06.005

Multifidus Degeneration: The Key Imaging Predictor of Adjacent Segment Disease

Abstract

Study Design

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Patient Population

MRI Assessment

Radiographic Measurements of Sagittal Balance

Statistical Analysis

Results

MRI Measurements

Radiographic Measurement of Sagittal Balance

Imaging Predictors for ASD Revision

ROC Analysis

Discussion

Disc Degeneration and Modic Changes

Paraspinal Muscle

Spinopelvic Alignment

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Author contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

Funding

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References