Asian Spine J Search

CLOSE


Asian Spine J > Volume 17(3); 2023 > Article
Cho, Hwang, Lee, and Lee: Using Lordotic Cages at the L5–S1 Level Does Not Guarantee the Improvement of Sagittal Alignment in Patients Who Underwent Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective comparative study.

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the effects of the lordotic angle of cages on sagittal alignment in patients who underwent 1- or 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), including the L5–S1 level.

Overview of Literature

Few studies have addressed the effects of the lordotic angle of cages on regional and global sagittal balance in patients undergoing PLIF at the L5–S1 level.

Methods

Sixty-one patients who underwent 1- or 2-level PLIF, including the L5–S1 level, were divided into two groups based on the lordotic angle of cages (4° and 8° in 41 and 20 patients, respectively). Clinical and radiological parameters were compared. Correlation analyzes were performed to reveal the effect of flexibility and position of cages on the regional sagittal parameters.

Results

Pre- and postoperative clinical and radiological parameters were not different between the two groups. Although clinical outcomes improved postoperatively, sagittal parameters did not improve postoperatively in both groups. Patients who underwent 1-level PLIF at the L5–S1 level with the use of 8° cages showed no postoperative improvement (segmental angle: 16.1°–15.9°, p=0.140; lumbar lordosis: 44.8°–47.8°, p=0.740) of regional sagittal parameters. The degree of anterior location of cages showed a positive correlation with the postoperative restoration of the segmental angle (p=0.012 and p=0.050 at 1 and 2 years postoperatively, respectively).

Conclusions

Clinical and radiological outcomes based on the lordotic angle of cages were not different. Even with the use of 8° cages and regardless of the more anterior position of cages, sagittal alignment did not improve in cases involving the L5–S1 level. PLIF at the L5–S1 level should be used with caution because improvement in sagittal alignment did not occur.

Introduction

Sagittal alignment and its association with functional outcomes have been the focus of recent research [1,2]. Because regional sagittal imbalance is correlated with poor clinical outcomes in degenerative lumbar diseases, this concept is applicable and important for general spine surgeons and specialized deformity surgeons [3,4]. Knowledge of sagittal alignment is highly significant, even when performing degenerative lumbar spine surgeries, because several spinal deformities also arise from simple lumbar fusion surgeries, including iatrogenic flatback [5].
Among various types of lumbar surgeries, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is a well-proven procedure to perform in patients who require stabilization following wide decompression for spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis [6,7]. PLIF has several advantages in maintaining sagittal balance compared with posterolateral fusion [8]. Intervertebral height elevation and cage insertion are believed to be the main reasons for the superiority of PLIF, followed by compression between pedicle screws posteriorly. For this reason, research has focused on the effect of cage morphometry on postoperative sagittal parameters [9,10]. Although several studies have addressed the effects of the lordotic angle of cages on regional and global sagittal balance in patients who underwent PLIF, these studies did not compare the effect of lordotic cages focusing on the L5–S1 level [10]. In fact, the characteristics of the L5–S1 disk space are completely different from those of the L4–5 or L3–4 disc space regarding the high nonunion rate and greater segmental angle (SA). Therefore, a lordotic cage may be mandatory to keep the lordotic angle at the L5–S1 level. Therefore, we hypothesized that lordotic cages have different effects at the L5–S1 PLIF. This study aimed to determine the effects of the lordotic angle of cages on sagittal alignment in patients who underwent L5–S1 PLIF.

Materials and Methods

1. Patients and operative methods

A total of 298 consecutive patients who underwent 1 or 2-level PLIF for spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis from March 2014 to December 2018 in Asan Medical Center (Seoul) were included in this study. Of the 298 patients, only 61 who underwent L5–S1 fusion (L5–S1 or L4–5–S1) were finally enrolled. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon (J.H.C.) and were followed up for more than 2 years. We used a Jackson spine table with supporting cushions in the chest and bilateral pelvic area to avoid pressure on the abdomen, which could lead to lumbar lordosis (LL). The operative procedure was performed in the following manner: open midline approach, pedicle screw insertion, disk space distraction with temporary rod fixation, total laminectomy with complete total facetectomy, disk material removal with serial dilation, endplate curettage with ring curette, polyetheretherketone cage insertion with bone graft material (local bone fragments with demineralized bone matrix or bone morphogenetic protein-2), and rod fixation by maximal compression between screws to maximize segmental lordosis. We typically attempted to insert cages bilaterally. Four-degree lordotic cages were routinely used between 2014 and 2016. Since 2017, 8° lordotic cages were used. Based on the lordotic angle of the cages, patients were divided into two groups (4° and 8° in 41 and 20 patients, respectively).

2. Study variables

Demographic and surgery-related data were obtained by electronic chart reviews. Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. Radiological parameters were obtained from whole-spine standing lateral radiographs pre- and postoperatively. The SA and LL were measured as regional sagittal parameters. The SA was defined as a Cobbs angle between the uppermost and lowermost endplates of the involved vertebra (i.e., L4 and L5 if L4–5 fusion, respectively). The C7–S1 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and pelvic incidence (PI)–LL (PI–LL) were measured as global sagittal parameters. The flexibility of the involved segment was measured by the difference of SA in flexion and extension lateral radiographs (i.e., the value divided by two if 2-level fusion). The position of cages was measured by subtracting the distance between the posterior margin of the cage and the posterior end of the disk space from the distance between the anterior margin of the cage and the anterior end of the disk space. A positive value indicates that the cages are anteriorly located in the disk space. The measurement methods are briefly illustrated in Fig. 1. All patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and annually thereafter. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center (IRB no., 2020-1306), which waived the requirement for informed consent due to the retrospective nature of the study.

3. Statistical analyzes

Demographic data, surgery-related data, clinical outcomes, and radiological outcomes were compared between the groups using Student t-test or chi-square test. Correlation analyzes were performed to reveal the effect of flexibility or position of cages on the SA or LL. Statistical analyzes were performed using the IBM SPSS software ver. 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). All p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The patients had a mean age of 63.5 years old. Demographic data showed no differences between the two groups (Table 1). Moreover, no differences in preoperative radiological parameters were detected between the two groups.

1. Comparisons of clinical and radiological outcomes between the 4° and 8° cage groups

SA (20.2°–19.3°, p=0.259), LL (42.7°–43.3°, p=0.705), C7–S1 SVA (28.3–30.5 mm, p=0.795), and PI–LL (10.2°–9.6°, p=0.725) did not change postoperatively. No differences in the radiological parameters between the two groups at every follow-up period were noted (Table 2). Furthermore, clinical outcomes showed marked improvement postoperatively. Back and leg pain VAS scores decreased from 5.4 to 3.0 (p=0.004) and from 5.3 to 3.8 (p=0.099), respectively. Moreover, ODI scores decreased from 56.0 to 28.6 postoperatively (p<0.001). However, no differences in VAS, ODI, and each domain of EQ-5D were found between the two groups (Table 3).

2. Comparisons of regional sagittal parameters in 1 or 2-level PLIF, including the L5–S1 level

Patients who underwent PLIF at the L5–S1 level with 4° cages showed no postoperative improvement in regional sagittal parameters. SA changed from 16.1° to 15.3° (p=0.357), and LL changed from 42.0° to 45.8° (p=0.132) at postoperative 2 years. This result was also confirmed even with the use of 8° cages. SA changed from 16.1° to 15.9° (p=0.140), and LL changed from 44.8° to 47.8° (p=0.740) postoperatively. Additionally, no differences in sagittal parameters between 4° and 8° cages in 1-level L5–S1 fusion cases (Table 4) and 2-level L4–5–S1 fusion cases were noted (Table 5).

3. Correlation between segmental flexibility, position of cages, and postoperative changes in segmental angle and lumbar lordosis

Preoperative segmental flexibility was not correlated with postoperative changes in the SA and LL. However, the degree of anterior location of cages was positively correlated with the postoperative SA restoration (p=0.012 and p=0.050 at 1 and 2 years postoperatively, respectively). This effect was not shown in LL restoration (Table 6). A representative case is briefly illustrated in Fig. 2.

Discussion

Sagittal alignment has been widely researched and is closely related to functional outcomes [1,2]. Aggravation of regional sagittal parameters, including decreased LL or increased pelvic tilt, resulted in poor clinical outcomes, even if global sagittal parameters are well maintained [1113]. Thus, a thorough understanding of the maintenance of sagittal alignment is significant for lumbar fusion surgeries.
Recently, the regional sagittal alignment between L4 and S1 has become a meaningful parameter to predict mechanical complications following deformity correction [14,15]. Sagittal realignment at the lower lumbar level should be stressed in degenerative lumbar surgeries to avoid sagittal imbalance and minimize adjacent segment disease. Although anterior or oblique lumbar interbody fusion techniques could restore LL better, PLIF and TLIF are the most frequently used procedures if direct decompression is required. To improve regional sagittal balance, such as the SA or LL, lordotic cages have been used [16]. Although several studies compared the clinical and radiological outcomes, most studies did not demonstrate any differences based on the lordotic angle of the cages or cage morphometry [9,11]. However, those studies did not focus on the L5–S1 level.
In our study, we did not find improvement in sagittal parameters following L5–S1 PLIF despite using 8° cages. Furthermore, we did not observe differences between the 4° and 8° cage groups. The reason for this finding is unclear. An intact anterior longitudinal ligament could prevent successful lordotic changes [17,18]. Severe degenerative changes causing disk height loss may also inhibit enough distraction to use lordotic cages [19]. For this reason, posterior insertion of higher-degree cages, such as 12°, will be challenging. The level of degenerative lumbar disease is also difficult. The physiologic lordosis of the L5–S1 level is greater than that of the L3–4 or L4–5 level [20]. Owing to more frequent surgeries at the L5–S1 level, the probability of failure to restore ideal lordosis may increase by using PLIF.
The abovementioned results suggest that PLIF at the L5–S1 level is insufficient to restore ideal lordosis in patients with a degenerative lumbar spine. However, another study proposed SA restoration at the L5–S1 level by using the “insert and rotate maneuver” [21]. This technique was suggested to obtain the optimum cage position for lordosis. In fact, it was reported that the anterior position of cages is significant to restore segmental lordosis [21], which is a concurrent finding in our study (Table 6). Furthermore, LL and SVA restoration was reported by using hyper-lordotic cages (15°) [22]. Therefore, to reveal the effects of lordotic cages on lordosis restoration at the L5–S1 level, comparisons of different insertion techniques or higher lordotic angles of cages are required.
The lack of LL following lumbar degenerative surgeries indicates a high probability of iatrogenic flatback deformity, as well as adjacent segment degeneration, in the future [2325]. In our study, although it was easy to insert the cages more anteriorly at the L5–S1 level, it did not guarantee sufficient restoration of segmental lordosis at the L5–S1 level. Therefore, surgeons should pay attention to the sagittal restoration when they perform PLIF, particularly at the L5–S1 level.
The reasons for the failure to restore ideal lordosis at the L5–S1 level using PLIF can be explained by anatomical characteristics. First, the physiological lordotic angle of the L5–S1 level is the largest among all disk levels [20]. Second, disk degeneration followed by disk height collapse at the L5–S1 level is a frequent mechanism of neural foraminal stenosis; the disk collapse makes the insertion of cages with enough height more difficult [26,27]. Third, the inherent rigidity of the sacrum could prevent free manipulation of the L5–S1 disk space.
Based on the current study, the authors started researching the risk of aggravation of sagittal alignment more carefully before operating at the L5–S1 level. If there is preoperative sagittal malalignment or the ideal angle of lordosis is greater (such as in patients with high PI), we considered other options to avoid postoperative iatrogenic sagittal malalignment. Although lack of access due to frequent vascular anatomic barriers is a challenge, oblique lumbar interbody fusion is an alternative approach [28,29].
This retrospective study had some limitations. First, the number of patients was not equally distributed. A smaller number of patients underwent PLIF at the L5–S1 level with 8° cages, making it difficult to reach the statistical power required to detect significant differences. Second, this study included heterogeneous diseases, including central spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, isthmic spondylolisthesis, and neural foraminal stenosis. The heterogeneity could cause selection bias regardless of the statistical analyzes. Third, comparison with anterior or lateral approaches, including ALIF or OLIF, which are well-known types of lordotic surgeries, could have been better; however, we did not have enough cases for the comparison.
Regardless of the abovementioned limitations, this study is meaningful in that surgeons should pay attention to the sagittal alignment even when performing simple lumbar fusion surgeries at the L5–S1 level. Regional sagittal imbalance at the L5–S1 level could be related to the development of adult spinal deformities in the future.

Conclusions

No differences in clinical and radiological outcomes based on the lordotic angle of the cages in PLIF, including the L5–S1 level, were noted. Despite the use of 8° cages and regardless of the more anterior position of cages, sagittal alignment did not change postoperatively in cases involving the L5–S1 level. Therefore, since the improvement in sagittal alignment did not occur, caution should be used during PLIF at the L5–S1 level.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: JHC; data curation: JHC, CJH; formal analysis: JHC; funding acquisition: DHL, CSL; methodology: JHC, CJH; project administration: DHL, CSL; visualization: CJH, DHL; Writing-original draft: CJH; writing-review & editing: CJH, DHL, CSL; and final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

Fig. 1
(A, B) Radiological measurements. (A) Segmental angle (SA), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI)a), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). (B–D) Flexibility of segments and position of cages.
asj-2022-0228f1.jpg
Fig. 2
A representative case showing the aggravation of sagittal balance following posterior lumbar interbody fusion at L5–S1 level with 8° lordotic cages. (A) A 68-year-old female patient with left leg sciatica and intermittent claudication showed regional sagittal imbalance preoperatively. (B) Magnetic resonance imaging showed left foraminal stenosis at L5–S1 level (arrow). (C) Regional sagittal parameters did not improve in the 2-year postoperative radiograph, despite the use of 8° cages. SVA, sagittal vertical axis; LL, lumbar lordosis; SA, segmental angle; PI, pelvic incidence.
asj-2022-0228f2.jpg
Table 1
Demographic data and preoperative radiological parameters
Characteristic 4° Cages (N=41) 8° Cages (N=20) p-value
Age (yr) 63.5±9.4 63.5±8.4 0.988
Sex
 Male 11 3 0.302
 Female 30 17
Height (cm) 156.6±8.9 155.7±6.0 0.689
Weight (kg) 61.5±12.1 60.2±9.3 0.693
Body mass index (kg/m2) 25.0±4.0 24.9±3.9 0.954
Bone mineral density (T score) −1.2±1.2 −1.3±1.2 0.804
Operation level
 1 23 (56.1) 13 (65.0) 0.507
 2 18 (43.9) 7 (35.0)
Follow-up period (mo) 28.3±10.2 23.8±8.4 0.341
Flexibility (°) 7.8±3.6 10.3±6.0 0.070
Position of cages (mm)a) 2.5±4.1 2.7±7.1 0.932
Segmental angle (°) 18.5±7.7 20.1±7.0 0.466
LL (°) 41.6±13.3 43.4±9.9 0.621
C7–S1 SVA (mm) 24.1±46.3 19.2±34.2 0.687
PI (°) 52.9±9.8 52.3±11.0 0.838
PI–LL (°) 11.3±13.0 8.9±8.8 0.485

Values are presented as number of cases (%) for categorical variables and mean±standard deviation for continuous variables.

LL, lumbar lordosis; SVA, sagittal vertical axis; PI, pelvic incidence; PI–LL, PI–LL mismatch.

a) Positive means anteriorly located cages in the disc space.

Table 2
Comparisons of radiological parameters by the lordotic angle of cages
Variable Period 4° Cages (n=41) 8° Cages (n=20) p-value
SA (°) Preop 18.5±7.7 20.1±7.0 0.466
PO 6 mo 18.4±8.0 20.0±6.9 0.581
PO 1 yr 18.7±6.5 21.1±5.6 0.263
PO 2 yr 17.4±7.4 20.7±6.2 0.139
LL (°) Preop 41.6±13.3 43.4±9.9 0.621
PO 6 mo 45.7±10.5 41.5±9.0 0.242
PO 1 yr 44.6±10.1 43.8±7.8 0.802
PO 2 yr 42.9±13.3 45.2±9.0 0.545
C7–S1 SVA (mm) Preop 24.1±46.3 19.2±34.2 0.687
PO 6 mo 28.6±30.9 31.9±27.7 0.756
PO 1 yr 13.0±28.3 18.8±22.0 0.516
PO 2 yr 23.8±33.20 9.4±25.5 0.340
PI–LL (°) Preop 11.3±13.0 8.9±8.8 0.485
PO 6 mo 7.5±14.6 11.1±7.2 0.376
PO 1 yr 5.8±15.6 9.6±8.7 0.415
PO 2 yr 8.4±20.8 −1.4±9.3 0.279

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

SA, segmental angle; Preop, preoperative; PO, postoperative; LL, lumbar lordosis; SVA, sagittal vertical axis; PI–LL, pelvic incidence-LL mismatch.

Table 3
Comparisons of functional outcomes by the lordotic angle of cages
Variable Period 4° Cages (N=41) 8° Cages (N=20) p-value
VAS (back) Preop 5.3±2.6 5.9±1.7 0.491
PO 1 yr 2.7±2.7 4.6±2.6 0.057
PO 2 yr 4.0±3.3 4.7±2.5 0.450
VAS (leg) Preop 5.8±2.8 4.7±3.0 0.328
PO 1 yr 2.3±2.8 3.3±2.8 0.374
PO 2 yr 3.1±3.3 3.7±3.2 0.566
ODI Preop 54.0±16.9 62.0±17.4 0.165
PO 1 yr 31.3±17.8 29.4±14.1 0.753
PO 2 yr 32.7±21.1 34.6±17.4 0.750
EQ-5D (mobility) Preop 3.2±0.9 3.7±1.1 0.092
PO 1 yr 2.2±1.0 1.8±1.0 0.221
PO 2 yr 2.2±1.0 2.1±1.1 0.693
EQ-5D (self) Preop 2.4±1.0 2.7±1.4 0.460
PO 1 yr 1.8±0.9 2.0±0.9 0.458
PO 2 yr 1.8±1.0 2.2±0.8 0.190
EQ-5D (general) Preop 3.0±1.0 3.5±1.4 0.243
PO 1 yr 2.0±1.1 2.1±0.8 0.715
PO 2 yr 2.3±1.1 2.3±0.8 0.970
EQ-5D (pain) Preop 3.4±1.1 3.6±0.9 0.435
PO 1 yr 2.4±1.0 2.6±0.9 0.667
PO 2 yr 2.6±1.0 2.9±1.0 0.291
EQ-5D (depression) Preop 2.7±1.4 2.7±1.4 0.868
PO 1 yr 1.9±1.0 1.9±1.1 0.875
PO 2 yr 1.8±1.0 2.3±1.3 0.096

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

VAS, Visual Analog Scale; Preop, preoperative; PO, postoperative; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; EQ-5D, EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire.

Table 4
Effect of lordotic angle of cages in 1-level L5–S1 fusion cases
Variable 4° Cages (N=27) 8° Cages (N=13) p-valuea)
Flexibility (°) 8.3±4.0 11.7±7.0 0.142
Position of cages (mm) 3.2±4.4 4.8±7.3 0.411
SA_preop (°) 16.1±6.0 16.1±4.7 0.994
SA_PO 6 mo (°) 16.4±8.4 15.3±3.7 0.706
SA_PO 1 yr (°) 16.8±5.7 16.9±3.3 0.973
SA_PO 2 yr (°) 15.3±6.7 15.9±3.6 0.811
LL_preop (°) 42.0±13.6 44.8±11.2 0.548
LL_PO 6 mo (°) 48.4±9.7 41.8±10.5 0.164
LL_PO 1 yr (°) 46.3±10.2 45.3±8.5 0.812
LL_PO 2 yr (°) 45.8±12.6 47.8±10.5 0.703

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

SA, segmental angle; Preop, preoperative; PO, postoperative; LL, lumbar lordosis.

a) Each p-value represents the comparison between 4° cages and 8° cages.

Table 5
Effect of lordotic angle of cages in 2-level L4–5–S1 fusion cases
Variable 4° Cages (N=14) 8° Cages (N=7) p-valuea)
Flexibility (°) 6.8±2.0 7.9±2.7 0.343
Position of cages (mm) 6.5±6.5 2.5±4.3 0.181
SA_preop (°) 23.3±8.8 27.0±4.3 0.321
SA_PO 6 mo (°) 22.8±5.6 27.1±3.6 0.141
SA_PO 1 yr (°) 21.8±6.8 26.0±2.9 0.175
SA_PO 2 yr (°) 21.4±7.2 26.3±2.4 0.071
LL_preop (°) 40.8±13.3 40.9±7.4 0.992
LL_PO 6 mo (°) 39.5±10.7 41.0±6.7 0.778
LL_PO 1 yr (°) 41.4±9.8 42.0±7.2 0.898
LL_PO 2 yr (°) 37.9±13.3 42.3±6.6 0.386

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

SA, segmental angle; Preop, preoperative; PO, postoperative; LL, lumbar lordosis.

a) Each p-value represents the comparison between 4° cages and 8° cages.

Table 6
Correlation between segmental flexibility, position of cages and postoperative changes in segmental angle and lumbar lordosis
Variable SA diff (pre–1 yr) (°) SA diff (pre–2 yr) (°) LL diff (pre–1 yr) (°) LL diff (pre–2 yr) (°)




r p-value r p-value r p-value r p-value
Flexibility (°) −0.105 0.133 −0.059 0.474 −0.141 0.043 −0.067 0.414

Position of cages (mm) 0.175 0.012 0.160 0.050 −0.013 0.856 −0.096 0.239

SA, segmental angle; diff, difference; Pre, preoperative; LL, lumbar lordosis.

References

1. Yeh KT, Lee RP, Chen IH, et al. Correlation of functional outcomes and sagittal alignment after long instrumented fusion for degenerative thoracolumbar spinal disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018 43:1355–62.
crossref pmid pmc
2. Ogura Y, Shinozaki Y, Kobayashi Y, et al. Impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life after decompression surgery without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2019 30:470–5.
crossref
3. 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 23:451–8.
crossref pmid
4. Lee BH, Moon SH, Suk KS, Kim HS, Yang JH, Lee HM. Lumbar spinal stenosis: pathophysiology and treatment principle: a narrative review. Asian Spine J 2020 14:682–93.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
5. Boody BS, Rosenthal BD, Jenkins TJ, Patel AA, Savage JW, Hsu WK. Iatrogenic flatback and flatback syndrome: evaluation, management, and prevention. Clin Spine Surg 2017 30:142–9.
pmid
6. Elfiky TA, Patil ND, Allam Y, Ragab R. Endplate changes with polyetheretherketone cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Asian Spine J 2020 14:229–37.
crossref pmid pdf
7. Kim YH, Ha KY, Rhyu KW, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, pearls and pitfalls. Asian Spine J 2020 14:730–41.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
8. Yijian Z, Hao L, Huilin Y, Bin P. Comparison of posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: analysis of spino-pelvic sagittal balance and postoperative chronic low back pain. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018 171:1–5.
crossref pmid
9. Takahashi H, Suguro T, Yokoyama Y, Iida Y, Terashima F, Wada A. Effect of cage geometry on sagittal alignment after posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2010 18:139–42.
crossref pmid pdf
10. Lee JH, Lee DO, Lee JH, Shim HJ. Effects of lordotic angle of a cage on sagittal alignment and clinical outcome in one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Biomed Res Int 2015 2015:523728.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
11. He S, Zhang Y, Ji W, et al. Analysis of spinopelvic sagittal balance and persistent low back pain (PLBP) for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Pain Res Manag 2020 2020:5971937.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
12. Liow MH, Goh GS, Chua JL, et al. Sagittally balanced degenerative spondylolisthesis patients with increased sacral slope and greater lumbar lordosis experience less back pain after short-segment lumbar fusion surgery. Clin Spine Surg 2020 33:E231–5.
crossref pmid
13. Yamagishi A, Sakaura H, Ishii M, Ohnishi A, Ohwada T. Postoperative loss of lumbar lordosis affects clinical outcomes in patients with pseudoarthrosis after posterior lumbar interbody fusion using cortical bone trajectory screw fixation. Asian Spine J 2021 15:294–300.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
14. Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L, et al. Global alignment and proportion (GAP) score: development and validation of a new method of analyzing spinopelvic alignment to predict mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017 99:1661–72.
crossref pmid
15. Jacobs E, van Royen BJ, van Kuijk SM, et al. Prediction of mechanical complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: the GAP score versus the Schwab classification. Spine J 2019 19:781–8.
crossref pmid
16. Kong LD, Zhang YZ, Wang F, Kong FL, Ding WY, Shen Y. Radiographic restoration of sagittal spinopelvic alignment after posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clin Spine Surg 2016 29:E87–92.
crossref pmid
17. Uribe JS, Harris JE, Beckman JM, Turner AW, Mundis GM, Akbarnia BA. Finite element analysis of lordosis restoration with anterior longitudinal ligament release and lateral hyperlordotic cage placement. Eur Spine J 2015 24(Suppl 3): 420–6.
crossref pmid pdf
18. Nakashima H, Kanemura T, Satake K, et al. Factors affecting postoperative sagittal alignment after lateral lumbar interbody fusion in adult spinal deformity: posterior osteotomy, anterior longitudinal ligament rupture, and endplate injury. Asian Spine J 2019 13:738–45.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
19. Gambhir S, Wang T, Pelletier MH, Walsh WR, Ball JR. How does cage lordosis influence postoperative segmental lordosis in lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 2019 126:e606–11.
crossref pmid
20. Hey HW, Lau ET, Tan KA, et al. Lumbar spine alignment in six common postures: an ROM analysis with implications for deformity correction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017 42:1447–55.
pmid
21. Landham PR, Don AS, Robertson PA. Do position and size matter?: an analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction. Eur Spine J 2017 26:2843–50.
crossref pmid pdf
22. Youn YH, Cho KJ, Na Y, Kim JS. Global sagittal alignment and clinical outcomes after 1–3 short-segment lumbar fusion in degenerative spinal diseases. Asian Spine J 2022 16:551–9.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
23. Phan K, Nazareth A, Hussain AK, et al. Relationship between sagittal balance and adjacent segment disease in surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: meta-analysis and implications for choice of fusion technique. Eur Spine J 2018 27:1981–91.
crossref pmid pdf
24. Kim WJ, Ma CH, Kim SH, et al. Prevention of adjacent segmental disease after fusion in degenerative spinal disorder: correlation between segmental lumbar lordosis ratio and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch for a minimum 5-year follow-up. Asian Spine J 2019 13:654–62.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
25. Zheng G, Wang C, Wang T, et al. Relationship between postoperative lordosis distribution index and adjacent segment disease following L4-S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Orthop Surg Res 2020 15:129.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
26. Watanabe K, Yamazaki A, Morita O, Sano A, Katsumi K, Ohashi M. Clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar foraminal stenosis: preoperative diagnosis and surgical strategy. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011 24:137–41.
pmid
27. Lee S, Kang JH, Srikantha U, Jang IT, Oh SH. Extraforaminal compression of the L-5 nerve root at the lumbosacral junction: clinical analysis, decompression technique, and outcome. J Neurosurg Spine 2014 20:371–9.
crossref pmid
28. Champagne PO, Walsh C, Diabira J, et al. Sagittal balance correction following lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of the three approaches. Asian Spine J 2019 13:450–8.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
29. Xiao L, Zhao Q, Sun X, Liu C, Zhang Y, Xu H. Relationship between alterations of spinal/pelvic sagittal parameters and clinical outcomes after oblique lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 2020 133:e156–64.
crossref pmid


ABOUT
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine
88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3010-3530    Fax: +82-2-3010-8555    E-mail: asianspinejournal@gmail.com                
Korean Society of Spine Surgery
27, Dongguk-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si 10326, Korea
Tel: +82-31-966-3413    Fax: +82-2-831-3414    E-mail: office@spine.or.kr                

Copyright © 2024 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next