Methods: Among 399 patients who underwent ASD surgery, 62 (≥5 levels fused, >2-year follow-up) underwent fusion from T9–10 to L5 (group L, n=21) or to S2–alar–iliac (group S, n=41). Spinal alignments, Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 scores, performance of activities (clipping toenail, wiping buttock, and wearing socks), proximal and distal junctional failure (PJF+DJF), rod fractures (RFs), and overall revision rates (RRs) were compared between the groups. Results: Group L included younger patients and had longer follow-ups when compared with group S. Although the preoperative pelvic incidence and SRS sagittal modifiers were better in group L, postoperative spinal restorations were nonpathological in both groups. Both groups showed similar deformity progression at the 2-year follow-up; however, group L had lower SRS-22 pain scores. Although “wiping buttocks” did not differ between the groups, the performance of “clipping toenails” and “wearing socks” was poorer in group S at 2 years (possible, group S; 40% vs. group L; 85%–90%). The RRs did not differ between the groups; however, the PJF+DJF rate was higher in group L. DJF was not observed in group S, but occurrence of RFs was noted. Conclusions Although poorer SRS-22 pain scores might be related to lumbosacral mobility, sufficient restoration, equivalent deformity progression, and similar RRs with better activity imply that lumbosacral preservation should be considered in younger patients with moderate deformities.

Methods: Among 399 patients who underwent ASD surgery, 62 (≥5 levels fused, >2-year follow-up) underwent fusion from T9–10 to L5 (group L, n=21) or to S2–alar–iliac (group S, n=41). Spinal alignments, Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 scores, performance of activities (clipping toenail, wiping buttock, and wearing socks), proximal and distal junctional failure (PJF+DJF), rod fractures (RFs), and overall revision rates (RRs) were compared between the groups. Results: Group L included younger patients and had longer follow-ups when compared with group S. Although the preoperative pelvic incidence and SRS sagittal modifiers were better in group L, postoperative spinal restorations were nonpathological in both groups. Both groups showed similar deformity progression at the 2-year follow-up; however, group L had lower SRS-22 pain scores. Although “wiping buttocks” did not differ between the groups, the performance of “clipping toenails” and “wearing socks” was poorer in group S at 2 years (possible, group S; 40% vs. group L; 85%–90%). The RRs did not differ between the groups; however, the PJF+DJF rate was higher in group L. DJF was not observed in group S, but occurrence of RFs was noted. Conclusions Although poorer SRS-22 pain scores might be related to lumbosacral mobility, sufficient restoration, equivalent deformity progression, and similar RRs with better activity imply that lumbosacral preservation should be considered in younger patients with moderate deformities.

Methods: Among 399 patients who underwent ASD surgery, 62 (≥5 levels fused, >2-year follow-up) underwent fusion from T9–10 to L5 (group L, n=21) or to S2–alar–iliac (group S, n=41). Spinal alignments, Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 scores, performance of activities (clipping toenail, wiping buttock, and wearing socks), proximal and distal junctional failure (PJF+DJF), rod fractures (RFs), and overall revision rates (RRs) were compared between the groups. Results: Group L included younger patients and had longer follow-ups when compared with group S. Although the preoperative pelvic incidence and SRS sagittal modifiers were better in group L, postoperative spinal restorations were nonpathological in both groups. Both groups showed similar deformity progression at the 2-year follow-up; however, group L had lower SRS-22 pain scores. Although “wiping buttocks” did not differ between the groups, the performance of “clipping toenails” and “wearing socks” was poorer in group S at 2 years (possible, group S; 40% vs. group L; 85%–90%). The RRs did not differ between the groups; however, the PJF+DJF rate was higher in group L. DJF was not observed in group S, but occurrence of RFs was noted. Conclusions Although poorer SRS-22 pain scores might be related to lumbosacral mobility, sufficient restoration, equivalent deformity progression, and similar RRs with better activity imply that lumbosacral preservation should be considered in younger patients with moderate deformities.

Methods: Among 399 patients who underwent ASD surgery, 62 (≥5 levels fused, >2-year follow-up) underwent fusion from T9–10 to L5 (group L, n=21) or to S2–alar–iliac (group S, n=41). Spinal alignments, Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 scores, performance of activities (clipping toenail, wiping buttock, and wearing socks), proximal and distal junctional failure (PJF+DJF), rod fractures (RFs), and overall revision rates (RRs) were compared between the groups. Results: Group L included younger patients and had longer follow-ups when compared with group S. Although the preoperative pelvic incidence and SRS sagittal modifiers were better in group L, postoperative spinal restorations were nonpathological in both groups. Both groups showed similar deformity progression at the 2-year follow-up; however, group L had lower SRS-22 pain scores. Although “wiping buttocks” did not differ between the groups, the performance of “clipping toenails” and “wearing socks” was poorer in group S at 2 years (possible, group S; 40% vs. group L; 85%–90%). The RRs did not differ between the groups; however, the PJF+DJF rate was higher in group L. DJF was not observed in group S, but occurrence of RFs was noted. Conclusions Although poorer SRS-22 pain scores might be related to lumbosacral mobility, sufficient restoration, equivalent deformity progression, and similar RRs with better activity imply that lumbosacral preservation should be considered in younger patients with moderate deformities.

STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study. PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical and radiological results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) performed with cortical bone trajectory (CBT) pedicle screw insertion with those of TLIF using 'conventional' or percutaneous pedicle screw insertion. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: CBT is a new trajectory for pedicle screw insertion in the lumbar spine; clinical and radiological results of TLIF using pedicle screws inserted with CBT are unclear. METHODS: In total, 26 patients (11 males, 15 females) were enrolled in this retrospective study and divided into three groups: TLIF with pedicle screw insertion by conventional minimally invasive methods via the Wiltse approach (M-TLIF, n=10), TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw insertion (P-TLIF, n=6), and TLIF with pedicle screw insertion with CBT (CBT-TLIF, n=10). Surgical results and preand postoperative radiological findings were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less with CBT-TLIF (p=0.03) than with M-TLIF. Postoperative lordotic angles did not differ significantly among the three groups. Complete fusions were obtained in 10 of 12 levels (83%) with M-TLIF, in seven levels (100%) with P-TLIF, and in 10 of 11 levels (91%) with CBT-TLIF. On postoperative computed tomography, correct positioning was seen in 84.1% of M-TLIF screws, 88.5% of P-TLIF screws, and 90% of CBT-TLIF screws. CONCLUSIONS: CBT-TLIF resulted in less blood loss and a shorter operative duration than M-TLIF or P-TLIF. Postoperative rates of bone union, maintenance of lordotic angles, and accuracy of pedicle screw positions were similar among the three groups.
Case-Control Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Retrospective Studies ; Spine

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes between bilateral C2 pedicle screwing (C2PS) and unilateral C2PS, combined with contralateral C2 laminar screwing (LS), for posterior atlantoaxial fixation. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Posterior fixation with C1 lateral mass screwing (C1LMS) and C2PS (C1LMS-C2PS method) is an accepted procedure for rigid atlantoaxial stabilization. However, conventional bilateral C2PS is not always allowed in this method due to anatomical variations of C2 pedicles and/or asymmetry of the vertebral artery. Although unilateral C2PS plus contralateral LS (C2PS+LS) is an alternative in such cases, the efficacy of this procedure has not been evaluated in controlled studies (i.e., with bilateral C2PS as a control). METHODS: Clinical and radiological records of patients who underwent the C1LMS-C2PS method, using unilateral C2PS+LS (n=9), and those treated using conventional bilateral C2PS (n=10) were compared, with a minimum two years follow-up. RESULTS: Postoperative complications related to the unilateral C2PS+LS technique included one case of spontaneous spinous process fracture of C2. A C1 anterior arch fracture occurred after a fall in one patient, who underwent bilateral C2PS and C1 laminectomy. No significant differences were seen between the groups in reduction of neck pain after surgery or improvement of neurological status, as evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. A delayed union occurred in one patient each of the groups, with the final fusion rate being 100% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral C2PS+LS were comparable with those of the bilateral C2PS fixation technique for the C1LMS-C2PS method.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Laminectomy ; Neck Pain ; Postoperative Complications ; Retrospective Studies ; Vertebral Artery

STUDY DESIGN: In vivo biomechanical study using a three-dimensional (3D) musculoskeletal model for elderly individuals with or without pelvic retroversion. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of pelvic retroversion on the sagittal alignment of the spine, pelvis, and lower limb in elderly females while standing and walking. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Patients with hip–spine syndrome have concurrent hip-joint and spine diseases. However, the dynamic sagittal alignment between the hip joint and spine has rarely been investigated. We used a 3D musculoskeletal model to evaluate global spinopelvic parameters, including spinal inclination and pelvic tilt (PT). METHODS: A total of 32 ambulant females (mean age=78 years) without assistance were enrolled in the study. On the basis of the radiographic measurement for PT, participants were divided into the pelvic retroversion group (R-group; PT≥20°) and the normal group (N-group; PT<20°). A 3D musculoskeletal motion analysis system was used to analyze the calculated value for the alignment of spine, pelvis, and lower limb, including calculated (C)-PT, sagittal vertical axis (C-SVA), pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, T1 pelvic angle (C-TPA), as well as knee and hip flexion angles while standing and walking. RESULTS: While standing, C-PT and C-TPA in the R-group were significantly larger than those in the N-group. Hip angle was significantly smaller in the R-group than in the N-group, unlike knee angle, which did not show difference. While walking, C-SVA and C-TPA were significantly increased, whereas C-PT decreased compared with those while standing. The maximum hip-flexion angle was significantly smaller in the R-group than in the N-group. There was a significant correlation between the radiographic and calculated parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D musculoskeletal model was useful in evaluating the sagittal alignment of the spine, pelvis, and leg. Spinopelvic sagittal alignment showed deterioration while walking. C-PT was significantly decreased while walking in the R-group, indicating possible compensatory mechanisms attempting to increase coverage of the femoral head. The reduction in the hip flexion angle in the R-group was also considered as a compensatory mechanism.
Aged* ; Animals ; Extremities* ; Female ; Head ; Hip ; Hip Joint ; Humans ; Incidence ; Knee ; Leg ; Lordosis ; Lower Extremity ; Pelvis ; Spine ; Walking*