Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure risk around the thoracolumbar junction: Impact of anterior malalignment, pelvic retroversion, and upper instrumented level selection

Hansen M., Vila L., Leszczynski A., Aleman C., Meyer F., Deck C., ...Daha Fazla

BRAIN AND SPINE, cilt.6, 2026 (ESCI, Scopus) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 6
  • Basım Tarihi: 2026
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.bas.2026.106082
  • Dergi Adı: BRAIN AND SPINE
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

Introduction: Proximal junctional kyphosis/failure (PJK/PJF) remains a frequent and severe complication following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. While alignment risk factors are known, the specific mechanical influence of anterior malalignment and pelvic retroversion across different fusion levels remains poorly understood. Research question: How do postoperative anterior malalignment and pelvic retroversion influence PJK/PJF risk and biomechanical forces at the proximal junction based on upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) selection? Material and methods: We retrospectively analyzed 351 ASD patients fused to the pelvis, stratified by UIV: lower thoracic (LT, T9-T11; n = 206) or upper lumbar (UL, T12-L2; n = 145). Radiographic spinopelvic alignment was evaluated. Additionally, a validated finite element model (FEM) of T10-pelvis and L2-pelvis constructs simulated progressive anterior offsets and pelvic retroversion to quantify UIV endplate compressive and shear forces. Results: PJK/PJF incidence was comparable between groups (LT: 22.4%, UL: 22.2%). In both cohorts, PJK patients exhibited greater 6-week postoperative global sagittal malalignment and pelvic retroversion. LT failures were driven by higher SVA and thoracic kyphosis, whereas UL failures associated with increased segmental T10-L2 kyphosis. FEM showed LT constructs experienced predominant compressive forces scaling with anterior offset, while UL constructs experienced predominant posterior shear forces. Pelvic retroversion offered negligible mitigation against compression and limited shear reduction. Discussion and conclusion: UIV selection dictates the biomechanical failure mechanism, not the overall PJK/PJF risk. LT instrumentation exposes the proximal junction to compression, whereas the UL spine is susceptible to shear-driven failure. Pelvic retroversion cannot compensate for residual anterior malalignment. Therefore, UIV choice must account for regional alignment and predictable force vectors.