[Sagittal Profi le of the Spine in Patients after Lumbar Stabilisation Surgeries].

Abstract

Purpose of the study: Spine stabilization surgery is nowadays one of the most common spinal surgical procedures. Spinopelvic alignment is considered to be an important factor impacting the patients' preoperative diffi culties as well as the outcome of surgery. In our study, the outcomes of stabilization surgeries in patients with lumbar spine disorders were evaluated - especially in those with stenosis and spondylolisthesis, in whom the importance of sagittal parameters were assessed with respect to the patients' clinical outcomes and diffi culties.

Material and methods: The study included 50 patients with lumbar spine disorders who had undergone a spine stabilization surgery for a degenerative disease - lumbar spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis between 2015 and 2017. Spino-pelvic radiological parameters and clinical parameters were evaluated using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and Wilcoxon tests.

Results: In 38 of 50 patients, who at the end of the follow-up period did not have the PI-LL (pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis) mismatch, i.e. PI-LL was ≤10°, a statistically signifi cant difference in pelvic tilt (p=0.049) and sagittal vertical axis (p<0.001) was reported, which was not the case in the remaining patients of the study population. Claudication and OSWESTRY (ODI) showed no statistically signifi cant difference. We have also compared the differences in the number of fused vertebrae and type of stabilization. A signifi cant change was seen in the claudication parameter at 12 and 24 months after surgery (p=0.007, p=0.005), with better outcomes achieved by 360° lumbar fusion compared to posterior lumbar fusion. The improvement of VAS and ODI scores in both the groups over time (from 6.1 to 3.6 or from 6.3 to 3.5 in VAS and from 62 to 32, or from 62 to 30 in ODI) was also statistically signifi cant (p<0.001 in both groups), while when comparing the groups against each other it was statistically insignifi cant.

Discussion: The authors confi rmed signifi cant improvement in the studied clinical parameters in all groups of patients (VAS, ODI, claudication), which is consistent with the results of recently published papers. The authors also established the correlation between different radiological parameters in the studied groups. The results do not confi rm the importance of the length or type of instrumentation for the clinical outcomes. This is consistent with the fi ndings of other published manuscripts. The authors failed to confi rm a signifi cant change in clinical parameters in dependence on the matching relationship between the pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis.

Conclusions: Proper spinopelvic balance in patients after spinal surgery is a very important indicator of postoperative development and condition, but our cohort showed no statistically signifi cant difference in the clinical outcomes of patients whose postoperative sagittal parameters were unsatisfactory.

Key words: sagittal profi le, spine stabilization, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, sagittal vertical axis, SVA.