Comparison of two minimally invasive surgery strategies to treat adult spinal deformity

Abstract

OBJECT Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques are becoming a more common means of treating adult spinal deformity (ASD). The aim of this study was to compare the hybrid (HYB) surgical approach, involving minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion with open posterior instrumented fusion, to the circumferential MIS (cMIS) approach to treat ASD. METHODS The authors performed a retrospective, multicenter study utilizing data collected in 105 patients with ASD who were treated via MIS techniques. Criteria for inclusion were age older than 45 years, coronal Cobb angle greater than 20°, and a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: HYB (n = 62) and cMIS (n = 43). RESULTS The mean age was 60.7 years in the HYB group and 61.0 years in the cMIS group (p = 0.910). A mean of 3.6 interbody fusions were performed in the HYB group compared with a mean of 4.0 interbody fusions in the cMIS group (p = 0.086). Posterior fusion involved a mean of 6.9 levels in the HYB group and a mean of 5.1 levels in the cMIS group (p = 0.003). The mean follow-up was 31.3 months for the HYB group and 38.3 months for the cMIS group. The mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score improved by 30.6 and 25.7, and the mean visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back/leg pain improved by 2.4/2.5 and 3.8/4.2 for the HYB and cMIS groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups with regard to ODI or VAS scores. For the HYB group, the lumbar coronal Cobb angle decreased by 13.5°, lumbar lordosis (LL) increased by 8.2°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) decreased by 2.2 mm, and LL–pelvic incidence (LL-PI) mismatch decreased by 8.6°. For the cMIS group, the lumbar coronal Cobb angle decreased by 10.3°, LL improved by 3.0°, SVA increased by 2.1 mm, and LL-PI decreased by 2.2°. There were no significant differences in these radiographic parameters between groups. The complication rate, however, was higher in the HYB group (55%) than in the cMIS group (33%) (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS Both HYB and cMIS approaches resulted in clinical improvement, as evidenced by decreased ODI and VAS pain scores. While there was no significant difference in degree of radiographic correction between groups, the HYB group had greater absolute improvement in degree of lumbar coronal Cobb angle correction, increased LL, decreased SVA, and decreased LL-PI. The complication rate, however, was higher with the HYB approach than with the cMIS approach.