Efficacy of Varying Surgical Approaches on Achieving Optimal Alignment in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery

Abstract

Background: The Roussouly, SRS-Schwab, and Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) classifications define alignment by spinal shape and deformity severity. The efficacy of different surgical approaches and techniques to successfully achieve these goals is not well understood. Purpose: Identify the impact of surgical approach and/or technique on meeting complex realignment goals in adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery. Study Design/Setting: Retrospective study. Materials and Methods: Included patients with ASD fused to pelvis with 2-year data. Patients were categorized by: (1) Roussouly: matching current and theoretical spinal shapes, (2) improving in SRS-Schwab modifiers (0, +, ++), and (3) improving GAP proportionality by 2 years. Analysis of covariance and multivariable logistic regression analyses controlling for age, levels fused, baseline deformity, and 3-column osteotomy usage compared the effect of different surgical approaches, interbody, and osteotomy use on meeting realignment goals. Results: A total of 693 patients with ASD were included. By surgical approach, 65.7% were posterior-only and 34.3% underwent anterior-posterior approach with 76% receiving an osteotomy (21.8% 3-column osteotomy). By 2 years, 34% matched Roussouly, 58% improved in GAP, 45% in SRS-Schwab pelvic tilt (PT), 62% sagittal vertical axis, and 70% pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis. Combined approaches were most effective for improvement in PT [odds ratio (OR): 1.7 (1.1–2.5)] and GAP [OR: 2.2 (1.5–3.2)]. Specifically, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) below L3 demonstrated higher rates of improvement versus TLIFs in Roussouly [OR: 1.7 (1.1–2.5)] and GAP [OR: 1.9 (1.3–2.7)]. Patients undergoing pedicle subtraction osteotomy at L3 or L4 were more likely to improve in PT [OR: 2.0 (1.0–5.2)] and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis [OR: 3.8 (1.4–9.8)]. Clinically, patients undergoing the combined approach demonstrated higher rates of meeting SCB in Oswestry Disability Index by 2 years while minimizing rates of proximal junctional failure, most often with an ALIF at L5-S1 [Oswestry Disability Index-SCB: OR: 1.4 (1.1–2.0); proximal junctional failure: OR: 0.4 (0.2–0.8)]. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing ASD realignment, optimal lumbar shape and proportion can be achieved more often with a combined approach. Although TLIFs, incorporating a 3-column osteotomy, at L3 and L4 can restore lordosis and normalize pelvic compensation, ALIFs at L5-S1 were most likely to achieve complex realignment goals with an added clinical benefit and mitigation of junctional failure.