Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 2/2013

01-02-2013 | Original Article

Selection of proximal fusion level for adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis

Authors: Kyu-Jung Cho, Se-Il Suk, Seung-Rim Park, Jin-Hyok Kim, Jae-Hoon Jung

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

There is controversy regarding the appropriate proximal fusion level for adult degenerative scoliosis. Ideally, the horizontal vertebra is chosen for the upper instrumented vertebra to create a balanced spine. Fusion to T10 is recommended to prevent junctional problems at the proximal adjacent segment. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the optimal proximal fusion level for adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

Materials and Methods

Fifty-one patients with adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis (mean age 64.6 years) who underwent posterior instrumentation were analyzed after a minimum 2-year follow-up. The average number of levels fused was 5.9 segments (range 3–9) with distal fusion at L5 in 30 patients and S1 in 21 patients. The upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) ranged from T9 to L2. According to the relationship between UIV, horizontal vertebra (HV) and upper end vertebra (UEV), the patients were divided into three groups in the coronal plane: Group HV (UIV = HV or above); Group HV–UEV (UIV = between HV and UEV); and Group UEV (UIV = UEV or below). In the sagittal plane; the patients were divided into Group T9–10 (UIV = T9–10), Group T11–12 and Group L1–2.

Results

Proximal adjacent segment disease (ASD) was identified in 13 (25 %) out of 51 patients, including junctional kyphosis (n = 5), compression fractures (n = 4), progression of disc wedging (n = 2) and spinal stenosis (n = 2). Group UEV had more ASD (9 of 16 patients) compared to Group HV (2 of 21 patients) and Group HV–UEV (2 of 14 patients). It appeared that neutral vertebra could be a criterion for the selection of UIV in the coronal plane. Among the groups divided in the sagittal plane, proximal ASD was found in 47 % of 19 patients in Group L1–2, which was notably higher than 9 % in Group T9–10 and 20 % in Group T11–12.

Conclusions

Proximal adjacent segment disease developed more commonly when the proximal fusion stopped at the UEV or below in adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. UIV must be above UEV in the coronal plane. Fusion to T11 or T12 was acceptable when UIV was above UEV, since there was no significant difference in the rate of proximal adjacent segment between fusion to T10 and fusion to T11 or T12.
Literature
1.
Shufflebarger H, Suk SI, Mardjetko S (2006) Debate: determining the upper instrumented vertebra in the management of adult degenerative scoliosis: stopping at T10 versus L1. Spine 31((19S)):S185–S194PubMedCrossRef
2.
Simmons ED (2001) Surgical treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with associated scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 384:45–53PubMedCrossRef
3.
Mok JM, Hu SS (2007) Surgical strategies and choosing levels for spinal deformity: how high, how low, front and back. Neurosurg Clin N Am 18(2):329–337PubMedCrossRef
4.
Yang SH, Chen PQ (2003) Proximal kyphosis after short posterior fusion for thoracolumbar scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 411:152–158PubMedCrossRef
5.
Grubb SA, Lipscomb HJ, Suh PB (1994) Results of surgical treatment of painful adult scoliosis. Spine 19(14):1619–1627PubMedCrossRef
6.
Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR et al (2008) Short fusion versus long fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 17(5):650–656PubMedCrossRef
7.
Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR et al (2009) Arthrodesis to L5 versus S1 in long instrumentation and fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18(4):531–537PubMedCrossRef
8.
Le Huec JC, Aunoble S, Philippe L, Nicolas P (2011) Pelvic parameters: origin and significance. Eur Spine J 20(Supp 5):S564–S571CrossRef
9.
Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR et al (2010) Risk factors of sagittal decompensation after long posterior instrumentation and fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine 35(17):1595–1601PubMedCrossRef
10.
de Vries AA, Mullender MG, Pluymakers WJ et al (2010) Spinal decompensation in degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 19(9):1540–1544PubMedCrossRef
11.
Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR et al (2007) Complications in posterior fusion and instrumentation for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine 32(20):2232–2237PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
Transfeldt EE, Topp M, Mehbod AA, Winter RB (2010) Surgical outcomes of decompression, decompression with limited fusion, and decompression with full curve fusion for degenerative scoliosis with radiculopathy. Spine 35(20):1872–1875PubMedCrossRef
14.
Gupta MC (2003) Degenerative scoliosis. Options for surgical management. Orthop Clin North Am 34(2):269–279PubMedCrossRef
15.
Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Rhim SC, Kim YW et al (2007) Is the T9, T11, or L1 the more reliable proximal level after adult lumbar or lumbosacral instrumented fusion to L5 or S1? Spine 32(24):2653–2661PubMedCrossRef
16.
Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG et al (2005) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine 30(14):1643–1649PubMedCrossRef
17.
Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG et al (2008) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine 33(20):2179–2184PubMedCrossRef
18.
Lee GA, Betz RR, Clements DH, Huss GK (1999) Proximal kyphosis after posterior spinal fusion in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 24(8):795–799PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Selection of proximal fusion level for adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis
Authors
Kyu-Jung Cho
Se-Il Suk
Seung-Rim Park
Jin-Hyok Kim
Jae-Hoon Jung
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2527-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

European Spine Journal 2/2013 Go to the issue

Original Article

Motion characteristics of the vertebral segments with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis in elderly patients

Original Article

The posterior surgical correction of congenital kyphosis and kyphoscoliosis: 23 cases with minimum 2 years follow-up

Announcements

Announcements for issue 22-2-2013

Original Article

3D analysis of congenital scoliosis due to hemivertebra using biplanar radiography

Chinese section

Ultra-short-course chemotherapy for spinal tuberculosis: five years of observation

Grand Rounds

Expert’s comment concerning Grand Rounds case entitled “Staged corrective surgery for complex adolescent kyphoscoliosis caused by back scalding during the childhood period” (by Hui-Ren Tao et al. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2519-1)