Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes of three-column lumbar osteotomies with and without interbody cages for adult spinal deformity.

Abstract

Background context

Correcting sagittal malalignment in adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a challenging task, often requiring complex surgical interventions like pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSOs). Different types of three-column osteotomies (3COs), including Schwab 3, Schwab 4, Schwab 4 with interbody cages, and the "sandwich" technique, aim to optimize alignment and fusion outcomes. The role of interbody cages in enhancing fusion and segmental correction remains unclear.

Purpose

This study aimed to compare outcomes among these 4 3CO techniques, evaluating the impact of cage use at the osteotomy site on postoperative radiographic imaging and clinical outcomes.

Study design/setting

This is a multicenter retrospective study utilizing data from a prospective multicenter database of patients undergoing complex ASD surgery.

Patient sample

Ninety-seven patients who underwent 1 of 4 3CO techniques for thoracolumbar ASD correction with at least 2 years of follow-up were included. The sample consisted of 29 patients who underwent Schwab 3 osteotomy, 20 Schwab 4, 28 Schwab 4 with interbody cages, and 20 who underwent "sandwich" osteotomy.

Outcome measures

The Scoliosis Research Society-22 revised (SRS22r) questionnaire evaluating pain, activity, appearance, mental health, and satisfaction was used to evaluate patient reported outcomes and radiographic measures including segmental lordosis and fusion rates determined by 3 blinded reviewers were used to evaluate physiologic outcomes.

Methods

This study analyzed demographic data, radiographic outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, complications, and fusion rates over a 2-year follow-up period. Fusion status was determined via serial radiographs and evaluated independently by 3 blinded reviewers. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed to assess differences among the groups and the impact of interbody cage use on outcomes.

Results

Patients undergoing "sandwich" osteotomy exhibited worse preoperative leg pain scores and lower SRS22r activity (p=.015), appearance (p=.007), and mental health domain scores (p=.0015). No differences in complications were found among groups (p>.05). Patients who underwent osteotomy with a cage were more likely to have had previous spine fusion (91.7% vs. 71.4%, p=.010). Additionally, these patients had lower preoperative SRS22r mental domain (2.9±1 vs. 3.5±1, p=.009), satisfaction (2.3±1 vs. 2.7±1.2, p=.034), and SRS22r total scores (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.6±0.6, p=.0026) but demonstrated the greatest improvement in the mental health domain (0.9±0.7 vs. 0.3±0.9, p=.002). Cage use was associated with a larger mean change in segmental lordosis at the osteotomy site (32.9±9.6 vs. 28.7±9.5, p=.038). Fusion rates were significantly higher in the cage group (79.2% vs. 55.1%, p=.0012). Regression analysis identified cage use as an independent predictor for fusion (odds ratio, 3.338; 95% confidence interval, 1.108-10.054, p=.032).

Conclusions

Interbody cage use at the osteotomy site during 3COs for ASD correction was associated with improved fusion rates and greater segmental lordosis without increasing complication rates. Incorporating cages may provide enhanced alignment and fusion outcomes in complex ASD surgeries.

Department

Description

Provenance

Subjects

International Spine Study Group

Citation

Published Version (Please cite this version)

10.1016/j.spinee.2025.01.001

Publication Info

Mullin, Jeffrey P, Esteban Quiceno, Mohamed AR Soliman, Alan H Daniels, Justin S Smith, Michael P Kelly, Christopher P Ames, Shay Bess, et al. (2025). Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes of three-column lumbar osteotomies with and without interbody cages for adult spinal deformity. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society. p. S1529-9430(25)00019-1. 10.1016/j.spinee.2025.01.001 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/32083.

This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.

Scholars@Duke

Passias

Peter Passias

Instructor in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery

Throughout my medical career, I have remained dedicated to improving my patients' quality of life. As a specialist in adult cervical and spinal deformity surgery, I understand the significant impact our interventions have on individuals suffering from debilitating pain and physical and mental health challenges. Spinal deformity surgery merges the complexities of spinal biomechanics with the needs of an aging population. My research focuses on spinal alignment, biomechanics, innovative surgical techniques, and health economics to ensure value-based care that enhances patient outcomes.

Shaffrey

Christopher Ignatius Shaffrey

Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery

I have more than 25 years of experience treating patients of all ages with spinal disorders. I have had an interest in the management of spinal disorders since starting my medical education. I performed residencies in both orthopaedic surgery and neurosurgery to gain a comprehensive understanding of the entire range of spinal disorders. My goal has been to find innovative ways to manage the range of spinal conditions, straightforward to complex. I have a focus on managing patients with complex spinal disorders. My patient evaluation and management philosophy is to provide engaged, compassionate care that focuses on providing the simplest and least aggressive treatment option for a particular condition. In many cases, non-operative treatment options exist to improve a patient’s symptoms. I have been actively engaged in clinical research to find the best ways to manage spinal disorders in order to achieve better results with fewer complications.


Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.