Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
World Neurosurg. 2013 Feb 21. pii: S1878-8750(13)00345-8. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.02.059. [Epub ahead of print]

Revision Extension to the Pelvis versus Primary Spinopelvic Instrumentation in Adult Deformity: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications.

Author information

  • 1Department of Neurosurgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA.
  • 2Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. Electronic address: jss7f@virginia.edu.virginia.edu.
  • 3Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
  • 4Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • 5Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
  • 6Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York, USA.
  • 7Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
  • 8Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Baylor Scoliosis Center, Plano, Texas, USA.
  • 9Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
  • 10San Diego Center for Spinal Disorders, La Jolla, California, USA.
  • 11Orthopaedic Surgery, Rocky Mountain Hospital for Children, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the outcomes and complications of patients with adult spinal deformity treated in a primary versus revision fashion with long fusions to the sacropelvis.

METHODS:

A retrospective review was performed of a multicenter consecutive series of patients with adult spinal deformity requiring fusion to the sacropelvis, either primarily or as revision, with minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical (Scoliosis Research Society [SRS] 22 questionnaire) and radiographic parameters (including sagittal vertical axis [SVA], coronal Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis, and thoracic kyphosis) were compared between the groups.

RESULTS:

There were 63 patients who met inclusion criteria; mean patient age was 51.9 years, and mean follow-up was 43 months. Patients requiring primary fusion were older (58.0 years vs. 49.5 years, P = 0.01) and at baseline had a lower SVA (2.1 cm vs. 6.8 cm, P = 0.01) and greater thoracolumbar Cobb angle (51.2 degrees vs. 36.5 degrees, P = 0.003). At last follow-up, patients undergoing primary fusion and patients undergoing revision treatment had similar SVA (2.9 cm vs. 1.8 cm, P = 0.32) and lumbar lordosis (-42.3 degrees vs. -43.4 degrees, P = 0.82); patients undergoing revision treatment had more favorable SRS 22 scores (3.65 vs. 3.14, P = 0.005). There was no statistical difference in complication rates between the groups (44.4% vs. 35%, P = 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS:

Patients requiring revision extension of instrumentation to the pelvis can be treated with the same expectation of radiographic and clinical success as patients treated primarily with fusion to the sacropelvis. The complication rate for the revision procedure is not insignificant and may be similar to a primary procedure that includes pelvic fixation.

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

KEYWORDS:

Complications; Instrumentation; Pelvis; Revision; Spine deformity; Surgery

PMID:
23438970
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Publication Types

Publication Types

PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk