Risk factors and clinical significance of posterior slip of the proximal vertebral body after lower lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND Adjacent segment disease (ASD) after fusion surgery is frequently manifests as a cranial segment instability, disc herniation, spinal canal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis. The risk factors and mechanisms of ASD have been widely discussed but never clearly defined. AIM To investigate the risk factors and clinical significance of retrograde movement of the proximal vertebral body after lower lumbar fusion. METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery between September 2015 and July 2021 and who were followed up for more than 2 years. Ninety-one patients with degenerative lumbar diseases were included (22 males and 69 females), with an average age of 52.3 years (40-73 years). According to whether there was retrograde movement of the adjacent vertebral body on postoperative X-rays, the patients were divided into retrograde and nonretrograde groups. The sagittal parameters of the spine and pelvis were evaluated before surgery, after surgery, and at the final follow-up. At the same time, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used to evaluate the patients' quality of life. RESULTS Nineteen patients (20.9%) who experienced retrograde movement of proximal adjacent segments were included in this study. The pelvic incidence (PI) of the patients in the retrograde group were significantly higher than those of the patients in the nonretrograde group before surgery, after surgery and at the final follow-up (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in lumbar lordosis (LL) between the two groups before the operation, but LL in the retrograde group was significantly greater than that in the nonretrograde group postoperatively and at the final follow-up. No significant differences were detected in terms of the |PI-LL|, and there was no significant difference in the preoperative lordosis distribution index (LDI) between the two groups. The LDIs of the retrograde group were 68.1% ± 11.5% and 67.2% ± 11.9%, respectively, which were significantly lower than those of the nonretrograde group (75.7% ± 10.4% and 74.3% ± 9.4%, respectively) (P < 0.05). Moreover, the patients in the retrograde group had a greater incidence of a LDI < 50% than those in the nonretrograde group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the ODI or VAS scores between the two groups before the operation, but the ODI and VAS scores in the retrograde group were significantly worse than those in the nonretrograde group after the operation and at the last follow-up, (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION The incidence of posterior slippage after lower lumbar fusion was approximately 20.9%. The risk factors are related to a higher PI and distribution of lumbar lordosis. When a patient has a high PI and insufficient reconstruction of the lower lumbar spine, adjacent segment compensation via posterior vertebral body slippage is one of the factors that significantly affects surgical outcomes.