L5-S1融合对脊柱整体运动的影响:235例患者L4-S1 2节段TDR与混合椎体融合椎体运动范围的比较分析

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Thierry Marnay, Guillaume Geneste, Gregory Edgard-Rosa, Martin Grau-Ortiz, Caroline Hirsch, Georges Negre
{"title":"L5-S1融合对脊柱整体运动的影响:235例患者L4-S1 2节段TDR与混合椎体融合椎体运动范围的比较分析","authors":"Thierry Marnay, Guillaume Geneste, Gregory Edgard-Rosa, Martin Grau-Ortiz, Caroline Hirsch, Georges Negre","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.05.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is a treatment option with 30 years of experience and extensive publications on clinical results. However, there is sparse literature on mid- and long-term mobility or the difference between L4-S1 two-level TDR and TDR/ALIF hybrid constructs with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5-S1 and TDR at L4-L5.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to measure and compare key mobility parameters in flexion-extension for both groups. These included motion at L4-L5, participation of pelvis mobility, global lumbar motion, and the effectiveness of overall lumbar flexion-extension. In addition, we looked for potential compensation above and below L5-S1 fusion in the hybrid group versus two-level TDR group.</p><p><strong>Study design/setting: </strong>Retrospective clinical study.</p><p><strong>Patient sample: </strong>We analyzed 235 patients who had surgery between 2003-2013; 170 patients received 2-level TDR (TDR group) and 65 received L4-L5 TDR and L5-S1 ALIF (Hybrid group). The average follow-up was 124 months for TDR group and 97 months for the hybrid group. Baseline demographics and patient-reported preoperative clinical parameters were equivalent in both groups.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Clinical measures included the following: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Satisfaction Index Scores and time of patient return to work after surgery. Complication, reoperation, and revision rates, and perioperative data points were also assessed. Radiographic evaluation included measurement of the following: pelvic parameters (Incidence, Pelvic Tilt, Sacral Slope), L4-L5 and L5-S1 flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), pelvic motion as measured by sacral slope in flexion-extension, and flexion-extension L1 ROM (newly described in the body of manuscript as \"L1 Race\") to show the effect the lumbopelvic complex has on global motion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The radiographic evaluation was performed on pre- and postoperative lateral and dynamic flexion-extension X-rays at the latest follow-up (minimum of 24 months follow-up).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When L5-S1 is fused, there is no compensation from pelvic motion to overcome the loss of mobility. TDR group shows a pelvi-femoral ROM (defined as sacral slope in extension minus sacral slope in flexion) gain of 16.77°, vs a gain of only 6.11° in the Hybrid group. L5-S1 fusion also reduces L4-L5 TDR mobility in the Hybrid group compared to the 2-level TDR group and decreases flexion compared to baseline. There is a mean reduction in lumbar (L1-S1) ROM of 1.53° in Hybrid group versus 20.02° gain in TDR group. L1 Race also reflects the superiority of 2-level TDR vs hybrid with a gain of 32.58° in TDR vs 4.68° in Hybrid, demonstrating that reduced global motion is principally due to the loss of L5-S1 influence on motion above and below. ODI, VAS back and leg pain, and satisfaction index scores were equivalent between groups. Return to work was statistically earlier for the 2-level TDR group both in terms of delay in return to work and the percentage who return.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The absolute motion and relative gain of 2-level TDR shows its functional superiority over Hybrid constructs in all measured parameters. This comparison between 2-level TDR and Hybrid also demonstrates a lack of compensation through lumbar mobility and pelvic motion when L5-S1 is fused. Two new ROM parameters introduced here-Pelvic motion and L1 Race quantify pelvic participation in mobility and the functional effectiveness of motion preservation. In this first long-term comparison of mobility between 2-level TDR vs L4-S1 Hybrid, 2-level TDR demonstrates overall superiority. It could be argued that 2-level TDR should be considered as first surgical option in case of 2-level degenerative disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of L5-S1 Fusion on Global Spine Motion: A Range of Motion Analysis Comparing 2-level TDR Versus Hybrid at L4-S1 in 235 Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Thierry Marnay, Guillaume Geneste, Gregory Edgard-Rosa, Martin Grau-Ortiz, Caroline Hirsch, Georges Negre\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.05.029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is a treatment option with 30 years of experience and extensive publications on clinical results. However, there is sparse literature on mid- and long-term mobility or the difference between L4-S1 two-level TDR and TDR/ALIF hybrid constructs with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5-S1 and TDR at L4-L5.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to measure and compare key mobility parameters in flexion-extension for both groups. These included motion at L4-L5, participation of pelvis mobility, global lumbar motion, and the effectiveness of overall lumbar flexion-extension. In addition, we looked for potential compensation above and below L5-S1 fusion in the hybrid group versus two-level TDR group.</p><p><strong>Study design/setting: </strong>Retrospective clinical study.</p><p><strong>Patient sample: </strong>We analyzed 235 patients who had surgery between 2003-2013; 170 patients received 2-level TDR (TDR group) and 65 received L4-L5 TDR and L5-S1 ALIF (Hybrid group). The average follow-up was 124 months for TDR group and 97 months for the hybrid group. Baseline demographics and patient-reported preoperative clinical parameters were equivalent in both groups.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Clinical measures included the following: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Satisfaction Index Scores and time of patient return to work after surgery. Complication, reoperation, and revision rates, and perioperative data points were also assessed. Radiographic evaluation included measurement of the following: pelvic parameters (Incidence, Pelvic Tilt, Sacral Slope), L4-L5 and L5-S1 flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), pelvic motion as measured by sacral slope in flexion-extension, and flexion-extension L1 ROM (newly described in the body of manuscript as \\\"L1 Race\\\") to show the effect the lumbopelvic complex has on global motion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The radiographic evaluation was performed on pre- and postoperative lateral and dynamic flexion-extension X-rays at the latest follow-up (minimum of 24 months follow-up).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When L5-S1 is fused, there is no compensation from pelvic motion to overcome the loss of mobility. TDR group shows a pelvi-femoral ROM (defined as sacral slope in extension minus sacral slope in flexion) gain of 16.77°, vs a gain of only 6.11° in the Hybrid group. L5-S1 fusion also reduces L4-L5 TDR mobility in the Hybrid group compared to the 2-level TDR group and decreases flexion compared to baseline. There is a mean reduction in lumbar (L1-S1) ROM of 1.53° in Hybrid group versus 20.02° gain in TDR group. L1 Race also reflects the superiority of 2-level TDR vs hybrid with a gain of 32.58° in TDR vs 4.68° in Hybrid, demonstrating that reduced global motion is principally due to the loss of L5-S1 influence on motion above and below. ODI, VAS back and leg pain, and satisfaction index scores were equivalent between groups. Return to work was statistically earlier for the 2-level TDR group both in terms of delay in return to work and the percentage who return.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The absolute motion and relative gain of 2-level TDR shows its functional superiority over Hybrid constructs in all measured parameters. This comparison between 2-level TDR and Hybrid also demonstrates a lack of compensation through lumbar mobility and pelvic motion when L5-S1 is fused. Two new ROM parameters introduced here-Pelvic motion and L1 Race quantify pelvic participation in mobility and the functional effectiveness of motion preservation. In this first long-term comparison of mobility between 2-level TDR vs L4-S1 Hybrid, 2-level TDR demonstrates overall superiority. It could be argued that 2-level TDR should be considered as first surgical option in case of 2-level degenerative disease.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.05.029\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.05.029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景背景:腰椎全椎间盘置换术(TDR)是一种有30年经验的治疗选择,临床结果广泛发表。然而,关于L4-S1两节段TDR与L5-S1前路腰椎椎间融合(ALIF)和L4-L5椎间融合(TDR)的TDR/ALIF混合结构的中长期活动性或差异的文献很少。目的:本研究的目的是测量和比较两组屈伸时的关键活动参数。这些包括腰4-腰5的运动、骨盆活动的参与、腰椎整体运动和腰椎整体屈伸的有效性。此外,我们在杂交组与双节段TDR组中寻找L5-S1融合上下的潜在代偿。研究设计/设置:回顾性临床研究。患者样本:我们分析了2003-2013年间接受手术的235例患者;170例患者接受2级TDR (TDR组),65例患者接受L4-L5级TDR + L5-S1 ALIF (Hybrid组)。TDR组平均随访124个月,混合组平均随访97个月。两组的基线人口统计数据和患者报告的术前临床参数相同。临床指标包括:Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)、视觉模拟量表(VAS)、背部和腿部疼痛、满意度指数评分和患者术后恢复工作时间。并发症、再手术和翻修率以及围手术期数据点也进行了评估。影像学评估包括以下测量:骨盆参数(发生率、骨盆倾斜、骶骨坡度)、L4-L5和L5-S1屈伸运动范围(ROM)、骨盆运动通过屈伸时的骶骨坡度测量,以及屈伸L1 ROM(在文章正文中新描述为“L1 Race”)来显示腰骨盆复合体对整体运动的影响。方法:在最近一次随访(至少随访24个月)时,对术前和术后侧位和动态屈伸x线进行影像学评价。结果:当L5-S1融合时,盆腔运动没有补偿来克服活动能力的丧失。TDR组骨盆-股骨ROM(定义为伸展时的骶骨斜率减去屈曲时的骶骨斜率)增益为16.77°,而Hybrid组的增益仅为6.11°。与2节段TDR组相比,Hybrid组的L5-S1融合也降低了L4-L5 TDR的活动度,与基线相比,屈曲度降低。杂交组腰椎(L1-S1) ROM平均减少1.53°,而TDR组平均增加20.02°。L1 Race也反映了2级TDR相对于hybrid的优越性,TDR的增益为32.58°,hybrid的增益为4.68°,表明全局运动的减少主要是由于L5-S1对上下运动的影响丧失。ODI、VAS腰、腿疼痛、满意度指数评分在两组间相等。从统计上看,2级TDR组返回工作岗位的时间要早于延迟返回工作岗位的时间和返回工作岗位的比例。结论:2级TDR的绝对运动和相对增益在所有测量参数上均优于Hybrid结构。两节段TDR和Hybrid的比较也表明,当L5-S1融合时,腰椎活动和骨盆运动缺乏代偿。本文介绍了两个新的ROM参数-骨盆运动和L1 Race量化骨盆参与活动和运动保存的功能有效性。在第一次对2级TDR与L4-S1混合动力之间的流动性进行长期比较中,2级TDR显示出总体优势。可以认为,对于2级退行性疾病,2级TDR应被视为第一手术选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effect of L5-S1 Fusion on Global Spine Motion: A Range of Motion Analysis Comparing 2-level TDR Versus Hybrid at L4-S1 in 235 Patients.

Background context: Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is a treatment option with 30 years of experience and extensive publications on clinical results. However, there is sparse literature on mid- and long-term mobility or the difference between L4-S1 two-level TDR and TDR/ALIF hybrid constructs with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5-S1 and TDR at L4-L5.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare key mobility parameters in flexion-extension for both groups. These included motion at L4-L5, participation of pelvis mobility, global lumbar motion, and the effectiveness of overall lumbar flexion-extension. In addition, we looked for potential compensation above and below L5-S1 fusion in the hybrid group versus two-level TDR group.

Study design/setting: Retrospective clinical study.

Patient sample: We analyzed 235 patients who had surgery between 2003-2013; 170 patients received 2-level TDR (TDR group) and 65 received L4-L5 TDR and L5-S1 ALIF (Hybrid group). The average follow-up was 124 months for TDR group and 97 months for the hybrid group. Baseline demographics and patient-reported preoperative clinical parameters were equivalent in both groups.

Outcome measures: Clinical measures included the following: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Satisfaction Index Scores and time of patient return to work after surgery. Complication, reoperation, and revision rates, and perioperative data points were also assessed. Radiographic evaluation included measurement of the following: pelvic parameters (Incidence, Pelvic Tilt, Sacral Slope), L4-L5 and L5-S1 flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), pelvic motion as measured by sacral slope in flexion-extension, and flexion-extension L1 ROM (newly described in the body of manuscript as "L1 Race") to show the effect the lumbopelvic complex has on global motion.

Methods: The radiographic evaluation was performed on pre- and postoperative lateral and dynamic flexion-extension X-rays at the latest follow-up (minimum of 24 months follow-up).

Results: When L5-S1 is fused, there is no compensation from pelvic motion to overcome the loss of mobility. TDR group shows a pelvi-femoral ROM (defined as sacral slope in extension minus sacral slope in flexion) gain of 16.77°, vs a gain of only 6.11° in the Hybrid group. L5-S1 fusion also reduces L4-L5 TDR mobility in the Hybrid group compared to the 2-level TDR group and decreases flexion compared to baseline. There is a mean reduction in lumbar (L1-S1) ROM of 1.53° in Hybrid group versus 20.02° gain in TDR group. L1 Race also reflects the superiority of 2-level TDR vs hybrid with a gain of 32.58° in TDR vs 4.68° in Hybrid, demonstrating that reduced global motion is principally due to the loss of L5-S1 influence on motion above and below. ODI, VAS back and leg pain, and satisfaction index scores were equivalent between groups. Return to work was statistically earlier for the 2-level TDR group both in terms of delay in return to work and the percentage who return.

Conclusion: The absolute motion and relative gain of 2-level TDR shows its functional superiority over Hybrid constructs in all measured parameters. This comparison between 2-level TDR and Hybrid also demonstrates a lack of compensation through lumbar mobility and pelvic motion when L5-S1 is fused. Two new ROM parameters introduced here-Pelvic motion and L1 Race quantify pelvic participation in mobility and the functional effectiveness of motion preservation. In this first long-term comparison of mobility between 2-level TDR vs L4-S1 Hybrid, 2-level TDR demonstrates overall superiority. It could be argued that 2-level TDR should be considered as first surgical option in case of 2-level degenerative disease.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Spine Journal
Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
680
审稿时长
13.1 weeks
期刊介绍: The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信