Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81 Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/e-kjs/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-04.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84 Impacts of Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery on Coronal Malalignment: Commentary on “Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Patients With Mild Scoliosis and Age-Appropriate Sagittal Alignment With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up”

Impacts of Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery on Coronal Malalignment: Commentary on “Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Patients With Mild Scoliosis and Age-Appropriate Sagittal Alignment With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up”

Article information

Neurospine. 2023;20(3):849-851
Publication date (electronic) : 2023 September 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2346926.463
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan
Corresponding Author Takashi Yurube Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe 650-0017, Japan Email: takayuru-0215@umin.ac.jp

Adult spinal deformity (ASD), affecting the thoracic, thoracolumbar, or lumbar spine in the coronal and sagittal planes after skeletal maturity [1], has increased interest in the morbidity and burden with the population of rapid aging [2]. The prevalence of ASD with the Cobb angle > 10° is notably high in elderly individuals of age ≥ 60 years, accounting for up to 68% [3]. Then, ASD has a complex spectrum of disorders, principally consisting of adult idiopathic scoliosis, de novo degenerative scoliosis, and iatrogenic flatback [1]. Age-related factors to accelerate ASD further include osteoporosis, vertebral fracture, spondylosis, spondylolisthesis, mobility restriction, body imbalance, and neurodegenerative disorders [1]. Patients with ASD often complain of back pain, neurological disturbance, deformity, and disability, resulting in a negative influence on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [4]. Compared to nonoperative care, operative intervention provides significant improvements in the disability, pain, and HRQoL of ASD patients [5]. However, favorable impacts of ASD surgery on HRQoL largely come from the restoration of sagittal spinopelvic alignment, while the magnitude of coronal malalignment and extent of coronal correction are less critical parameters.6,7 Integrated with consistent findings of following studies [8-10], the association between HRQoL and sagittal alignment has been well validated. More recently, the importance of age-adjusted sagittal alignment has been emphasized [11-14]. Meanwhile, in a retrospective study of prospectively collected data, the correction of sagittal alignment was the most significant predictive factor for the improved HRQoL in patients with combined coronal and sagittal malalignment, although the correction of coronal alignment trended toward but did not reach the significance in those with coronal malalignment alone, due to the limited sample size [15]. Therefore, effectiveness of coronal plane correction in the HRQoL improvement is still undetermined.

A retrospective case-control study from a prospective multicenter database of ASD, by Scheer et al. [16], investigated postoperative 2-year radiographic, HRQoL, and complication outcomes of a unique cohort with scoliosis but also with age-appropriate sagittal alignment. These patients without sagittal malalignment were divided and compared based on the degree of the maximum coronal Cobb angle of 10°–30° and > 30°. Patients with 10°–30° mild scoliosis tended to be frailer with more comorbidities including arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease, who had worse preoperative leg pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and MOS 36-item Short Form health survey (SF-36) physical composite score than those with > 30° scoliosis. On preoperative radiographs, the maximum coronal curve of 10°–30° mild scoliosis existed mainly in the lumbar spine, but with a similar level of the coronal C7 plumb line change to > 30° scoliosis, indicating a short-segment but aggressive lumbar spine curve which would be difficult to compensate for the frailty. During correction surgery, patients with 10°–30° mild scoliosis had less surgical invasion, a smaller number of posterior fusion levels and Smith-Petersen osteotomy levels but larger number of decompression levels, and lower levels of the uppermost instrumented vertebra, whereas the most common location of the lowermost instrumented vertebra was the sacroiliac region. Postoperative 2-year radiographs presented the increased thoracic kyphosis in the group of > 30° scoliosis as well as the decreased maximum coronal Cobb angle in both the groups of 10°–30° and > 30° scoliosis. In patients with 10°–30° mild scoliosis, postoperative 2-year HRQoL measures of ODI, SF-36, Scoliosis Research Society-22R (SRS-22R), and back and leg pain NRS, except for the SF-36 mental composite score, SRS activity, and SRS mental, were improved with statistical significance compared to preoperative values; furthermore, surgical treatment significantly improved all HRQoL variables in those with > 30° scoliosis. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit values for HRQoL instruments were also well met in both the scoliosis groups of 10°–30° (36%–74%) and > 30° (39%–78%), although patients with 10°–30° mild scoliosis had a lower rate to meet SRS appearance MCID. Then, a high percentage of surgical complications occurred in both the scoliosis groups of 10°–30° (64.3%) and > 30° (56.0%). In particular, rates of reoperation, implant failure, and neurological deficit were higher with marginal significance in patients with 10°–30° mild scoliosis than with > 30° scoliosis, indicating technically demanding surgery for 10°–30° mild scoliosis but with a short-segment, sharp coronal curve. This study is noteworthy which, for the first time, provides statistically robust data on the preoperative impairment and postoperative improvement of HRQoL in > 30° scoliosis patients and even in 10°–30° mild scoliosis patients, both without sagittal malalignment, undergoing ASD surgery primarily through the sacroiliac region.

The multicenter nature of this study is valuable but should be alerted, as there is a possible small variation in surgical indication and strategy for approaches, techniques, and fusion levels. Unjustified instrumentation is at risk of over treatment, which can lead to a considerable socioeconomic burden, particularly in ASD surgery [17]. Up to 3-level fusion and decompression surgery is commonly performed to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis with vertebral slippage and disc wedge or narrowing from L2 to L5 but with a relatively maintained harmony at L5–S1, providing substantial improvements in pain and function [18]. Unlike conventional fusion and decompression surgery [19,20], long-term results of ASD surgery are not fully uncovered. Further prospective, randomized, controlled trials regarding HRQoL outcomes of short-segment fusion versus long-segment fusion are warranted to identify an acceptable indication of ASD surgery in patients with short-segment, sharp coronal but not sagittal malalignment. This paper [16], published in the September 2023 issue of the Neurospine, has opened up new avenues to debate about impacts of ASD surgery on mild scoliosis and age-appropriate sagittal alignment.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

The author has nothing to disclose.

References

1. Diebo BG, Shah NV, Boachie-Adjei O, et al. Adult spinal deformity. Lancet 2019;394:160–72.
2. Cerpa M, Lenke LG, Fehlings MG, et al. Evolution and advancement of adult spinal deformity research and clinical care: an overview of the Scoli-RISK-1 study. Global Spine J 2019;9(1 Suppl):8S–14S.
3. Schwab F, Dubey A, Gamez L, et al. Adult scoliosis: prevalence, SF-36, and nutritional parameters in an elderly volunteer population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:1082–5.
4. Bess S, Line B, Fu KM, et al. The health impact of symptomatic adult spinal deformity: comparison of deformity types to united states population norms and chronic diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:224–33.
5. Teles AR, Mattei TA, Righesso O, et al. Effectiveness of operative and nonoperative care for adult spinal deformity: systematic review of the literature. Global Spine J 2017;7:170–8.
6. Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, et al. Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:682–8.
7. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, et al. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2024–9.
8. Lafage V, Schwab F, Skalli W, et al. Standing balance and sagittal plane spinal deformity: analysis of spinopelvic and gravity line parameters. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:1572–8.
9. Harroud A, Labelle H, Joncas J, et al. Global sagittal alignment and health-related quality of life in lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2013;22:849–56.
10. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S, et al. Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:E803–12.
11. Lafage R, Schwab F, Challier V, et al. Defining spino-pelvic alignment thresholds: should operative goals in adult spinal deformity surgery account for age? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:62–8.
12. Jalai CM, Cruz DL, Diebo BG, et al. Full-body analysis of age-adjusted alignment in adult spinal deformity patients and lower-limb compensation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:653–61.
13. Lafage R, Schwab F, Glassman S, et al. Age-adjusted alignment goals have the potential to reduce PJK. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:1275–82.
14. Scheer JK, Lafage R, Schwab FJ, et al. Under correction of sagittal deformities based on age-adjusted alignment thresholds leads to worse health-related quality of life whereas over correction provides no additional benefit. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;43:388–93.
15. Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Does correction of preoperative coronal imbalance make a difference in outcomes of adult patients with deformity? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:476–83.
16. Scheer JK, Smith JS, Passias PG, et al. Outcomes of surgical treatment for patients with mild scoliosis and age-appropriate sagittal alignment with minimum 2-year follow-up. Neurospine 2023;20:837–48.
17. Arutyunyan GG, Angevine PD, Berven S. Cost-effectiveness in adult spinal deformity surgery. Neurosurgery 2018;83:597–601.
18. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2257–70.
19. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1295–304.
20. Abdu WA, Sacks OA, Tosteson ANA, et al. Long-term results of surgery compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;43:1619–30.

Article information Continued