Outcomes and complications of extension of previous long fusion to the sacro-pelvis: is an anterior approach necessary?

dc.contributor.author

Fu, Kai-Ming G

dc.contributor.author

Smith, Justin S

dc.contributor.author

Burton, Douglas C

dc.contributor.author

Shaffrey, Christopher I

dc.contributor.author

Boachie-Adjei, Oheneba

dc.contributor.author

Carlson, Brandon

dc.contributor.author

Schwab, Frank J

dc.contributor.author

Lafage, Virginie

dc.contributor.author

Hostin, Richard

dc.contributor.author

Bess, Shay

dc.contributor.author

Akbarnia, Behrooz A

dc.contributor.author

Mundis, Greg

dc.contributor.author

Klineberg, Eric

dc.contributor.author

Gupta, Munish

dc.contributor.author

International Spine Study Group

dc.date.accessioned

2023-08-30T00:05:23Z

dc.date.available

2023-08-30T00:05:23Z

dc.date.issued

2013-01

dc.date.updated

2023-08-30T00:05:23Z

dc.description.abstract

Background

Patients with previous multilevel spinal fusion may require extension of the fusion to the sacro-pelvis. Our objective was to evaluate the outcomes and complications of these patients, stratified based on whether the revision was performed using a posterior-only spinal fusion (PSF) or combined anterior-posterior spinal fusion (APSF).

Methods

A retrospective, multicenter evaluation of adults (>18 years old) with a history of prior spinal fusion for scoliosis (≥4 levels) terminating in the distal lumbar spine requiring extension of fusion to the sacro-pelvis (including iliac fixation in all cases), with minimum 2-year follow-up, was performed. Patients were stratified based on approach (APSF vs. PSF) and inclusion of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO). The PSF group included patients treated with an anterior interbody fusion done through a posterior approach, whereas patients in the APSF group all had both anterior and posterior surgical approaches. Clinical outcomes were based on the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22) questionnaire.

Results

Between 1995 and 2006, 45 patients (mean age = 49 years) met inclusion criteria, with a mean follow-up of 41.9 months (range 24 to 135 months). Demographic, preoperative, operative, and postoperative radiographic, SRS-22, and follow-up results were similar between APSF (n=30) and PSF (n=15) groups. The APSF group had more complications (13 of 30 vs. 3 of 15) and a greater number of pseudarthrosis (4 of 30 vs. 0 of 15) than the PSF group; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Patients treated with a PSO (n=13) had greater sagittal vertical axis correction (7.7 cm vs. 2.2 cm; P=.04) compared with patients not treated with a PSO (n=32). There were no differences in complication rates or follow-up SRS-22 scores based on whether a PSO was performed (P>.05).

Conclusions

Among adults with previously treated scoliosis requiring extension to the sacro-pelvis, PSF produced radiographic fusion and clinical outcomes equivalent to APSF, whereas complication rates may be lower. PSO resulted in greater sagittal plane correction, without an increase in overall complication rates.
dc.identifier

S1878-8750(12)00636-5

dc.identifier.issn

1878-8750

dc.identifier.issn

1878-8769

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/28847

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

Elsevier BV

dc.relation.ispartof

World neurosurgery

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1016/j.wneu.2012.06.016

dc.subject

International Spine Study Group

dc.subject

Ilium

dc.subject

Lumbar Vertebrae

dc.subject

Sacrum

dc.subject

Humans

dc.subject

Scoliosis

dc.subject

Pseudarthrosis

dc.subject

Postoperative Complications

dc.subject

Radiography

dc.subject

Spinal Fusion

dc.subject

Osteotomy

dc.subject

Risk Factors

dc.subject

Retrospective Studies

dc.subject

Follow-Up Studies

dc.subject

Bone Screws

dc.subject

Adult

dc.subject

Aged

dc.subject

Middle Aged

dc.subject

Female

dc.subject

Male

dc.subject

Young Adult

dc.subject

Surveys and Questionnaires

dc.title

Outcomes and complications of extension of previous long fusion to the sacro-pelvis: is an anterior approach necessary?

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Shaffrey, Christopher I|0000-0001-9760-8386

pubs.begin-page

177

pubs.end-page

181

pubs.issue

1

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Orthopaedic Surgery

pubs.organisational-group

Neurosurgery

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

79

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1-s2.0-S1878875012006365-main.pdf
Size:
654.52 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format