Combined anterior-posterior versus all-posterior approaches for adult spinal deformity correction: a matched control study

Haddad S., Vila-Casademunt A., YILGÖR İ. Ç., Nunez-Pereira S., Ramirez M., Pizones J., ...Daha Fazla

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, cilt.31, sa.7, ss.1754-1764, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 31 Sayı: 7
  • Basım Tarihi: 2022
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s00586-022-07249-0
  • Dergi Adı: EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1754-1764
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Anterior, Spine, Deformity, Surgery, Scoliosis, Results, PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER ASSESSMENT, LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION, COLUMN REALIGNMENT ACR, COMPLICATIONS, ARTHRODESIS, EXPERIENCE, SURGERY
  • Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Purpose Anterior approaches are gaining popularity for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgeries especially with the introduction of hyperlordotic cages and improvement in MIS techniques. Combined Approaches provide powerful segmental sagittal correction potential and increase the surface area available for fusion in ASD surgery, both of which would improve overall. This is the first study directly comparing surgical outcomes between combined anterior-posterior approaches and all-posterior approach in a matched ASD population. Methods This is a retrospective matched control cohort analysis with substitution using a multicenter prospectively collected ASD data of patients with > 2 year FU. Matching criteria include: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists Score, Lumbar Cobb angle, sagittal deformity (Global tilt) and ODI. Results In total, 1024 ASD patients were available for analysis. 29 Combined Approaches patients met inclusion criteria, and only 22 could be matched (1:2 ratio). Preoperative non-matched demographical, clinical, surgical and radiological parameters were comparable between both groups. Combined approaches had longer surgeries (548 mns vs 283) with more blood loss (2850 ml vs 1471) and needed longer ICU stays (74 h vs 27). Despite added morbidity, they had comparable complication rates but with significantly less readmissions (9.1% vs 38.1%) and reoperations (18.2% vs 43.2%) at 2 years. Combined Approaches achieved more individualised and harmonious deformity correction initially. At the 2 years control, Combined Approaches patients reported better outcomes as measured by COMI and SRS scores. This trend was maintained at 3 years. Conclusion Despite an increased initial surgical invasiveness, combined approaches seem to achieve more harmonious correction with superior sagittal deformity control; they need fewer revisions and have improved long-term functional outcomes when compared to all-posterior approaches for ASD deformity correction.