Spinopelvic Sagittal Alignment after Microendoscopic Laminotomy in Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Abstract

Background and Study Aims Spinopelvic sagittal balance is important in managing lumbar diseases. We evaluated the change in spinal sagittal alignment after microendoscopic laminotomy in patients with low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).

Material and Methods We retrospectively reviewed the records of 87 patients who underwent microendoscopic laminotomy. We enrolled 35 patients with DS and 52 patients without DS. Spinopelvic parameters were evaluated, including the sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence (PI). Primary outcome was a change in spinopelvic alignment between the baseline and latest follow-up values (DS group versus non-DS group). Secondary outcomes were the relationships between improved global sagittal alignment and preoperative spinopelvic parameters.

Results Both groups showed significantly alleviated low back pain (LBP), leg pain, and leg numbness. Preoperative SVA and PI were significantly higher in the DS group than in the non-DS group (p < 0.05). SVA significantly decreased and LL significantly increased in the DS group (p < 0.05), whereas those parameters did not differ significantly from before versus after surgery in the non-DS group. In both groups, SVA improvement correlated significantly with preoperative SVA (DS: r = 0.702; non-DS: r = 0.397). There was also a significant intergroup difference in the correlation coefficient (z = 1.98; r = 0.048).

Conclusions SVA and LL significantly improved after microscopic laminotomy in patients with low-grade DS and neurologic symptoms. SVA improvement in the DS group was correlated with preoperative spinopelvic sagittal imbalance. The strength of those correlations was greater in the DS group than in the non-DS group.

Keywords

degenerative spondylolisthesis - sagittal vertical axis - lumbar lordosis - spinopelvic parameters

• References

• 1 Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy JP, Lafage V. Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine 2010; 35 (25) 2224-2231
• 2 Jackson RP, McManus AC. Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age, sex, and size. A prospective controlled clinical study. Spine 1994; 19 (14) 1611-1618
• 3 Fujii K, Kawamura N, Ikegami M, Niitsuma G, Kunogi J. Radiological improvements in global sagittal alignment after lumbar decompression without fusion. Spine 2015; 40 (10) 703-709
• 4 Hikata T, Watanabe K, Fujita N. , et al. Impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcomes after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis without coronal imbalance. J Neurosurg Spine 2015; 23 (04) 451-458
• 5 Dohzono S, Toyoda H, Takahashi S. , et al. Factors associated with improvement in sagittal spinal alignment after microendoscopic laminotomy in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 25 (01) 39-45
• 6 Dohzono S, Toyoda H, Matsumoto T, Suzuki A, Terai H, Nakamura H. The influence of preoperative spinal sagittal balance on clinical outcomes after microendoscopic laminotomy in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2015; 23 (01) 49-54
• 7 Barrey C, Jund J, Perrin G, Roussouly P. Spinopelvic alignment of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery 2007; 61 (05) 981-986 ; discussion 986
• 8 Funao H, Tsuji T, Hosogane N. , et al. Comparative study of spinopelvic sagittal alignment between patients with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2012; 21 (11) 2181-2187
• 9 Liu H, Li S, Zheng Z, Wang J, Wang H, Li X. Pelvic retroversion is the key protective mechanism of L4-5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (06) 1204-1211
• 10 Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991; 73 (06) 802-808
• 11 Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL, Ditkoff JS. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine 2004; 29 (07) 726-733 ; discussion 733–734
• 12 Kim MK, Lee SH, Kim ES, Eoh W, Chung SS, Lee CS. The impact of sagittal balance on clinical results after posterior interbody fusion for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a pilot study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 69
• 13 Lee SH, Lee JH, Hong SW, Chung SE, Yoo SH, Lee HY. Spinopelvic alignment after interspinous soft stabilization with a tension band system in grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine 2010; 35 (15) E691-E701
• 14 Försth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T. , et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (15) 1413-1423
• 15 Tyrakowski M, Yu H, Siemionow K. Pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt measurements using femoral heads or acetabular domes to identify centers of the hips: comparison of two methods. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (06) 1259-1264
• 16 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
• 17 Endo K, Suzuki H, Tanaka H, Kang Y, Yamamoto K. Sagittal spinal alignment in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Eur Spine J 2010; 19 (03) 435-438
• 18 Ferrero E, Ould-Slimane M, Gille O, Guigui P. ; French Spine Society (SFCR). Sagittal spinopelvic alignment in 654 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (06) 1219-1227
• 19 Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 2001; 26 (17) 1873-1878
• 20 Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J. Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine 2005; 30 (03) 346-353
• 21 Bayerl SH, Pöhlmann F, Finger T, Franke J, Woitzik J, Vajkoczy P. The sagittal spinal profile type: a principal precondition for surgical decision making in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2017; 27 (05) 552-559
• 22 Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE. , et al. Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (15) 1424-1434
• 23 Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 2001; 10 (04) 314-319
• 24 Gardocki RJ, Watkins RG, Williams LA. Measurements of lumbopelvic lordosis using the pelvic radius technique as it correlates with sagittal spinal balance and sacral translation. Spine J 2002; 2 (06) 421-429
• 25 Park JY, Cho YE, Kuh SU. , et al. New prognostic factors for adjacent-segment degeneration after one-stage 360 degrees fixation for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: special reference to the usefulness of pelvic incidence angle. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7 (02) 139-144
• 26 Toyoda H, Nakamura H, Konishi S, Dohzono S, Kato M, Matsuda H. Clinical outcome of microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach for lumbar canal stenosis: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine 2011; 36 (05) 410-415
• 27 Sasai K, Umeda M, Maruyama T, Wakabayashi E, Iida H. Microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis including degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 9 (06) 554-559
• 28 Minamide A, Yoshida M, Yamada H. , et al. Clinical outcomes after microendoscopic laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a 5-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (02) 396-403