Evaluation of Preoperative Calculation Methods of Osteotomy Size in Ankylosing Spondylitis with Thoracolumbar or Lumbar Kyphosis

Overview

Journal BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology

Date 2022 Dec 9

PMID 36482380

Authors

Jie Cheng

Shuwen Zhang

Weibin Sheng

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the accuracy of different preoperative calculation methods of osteotomy size in ankylosing spondylitis with thoracolumbar or lumbar kyphosis and analyze its clinical significance.

Methods: Twenty-two cases of AS patients with thoracolumbar or lumbar kyphosis, from January 2015 to December 2018, who underwent one-level SPO surgery in our hospital, were retrospectively reviewed. The sagittal parameters were measured at pre-operation and last follow up using Surgimap software, and theoretical values of sagittal parameters were calculated according to pre-operative PI. The osteotomy angles of different methods were measured using Surgimap software. Paired t test was used to for the statistical analysis.

Results: The mean follow-up time of all patients was 30.00 [Formula: see text] 3.56 months. The osteotomy sites were located at T12 in 3 cases, L1 in 6 cases, L2 in 9 cases, and L3 in 4 cases. Compared to pre-operative sagittal parameters, post-operative PT, SS, LL, and SVA were significantly improved (P [Formula: see text] 0.05). Compared to the OVA (46.57 [Formula: see text] 2.32 [Formula: see text]), there was a significantly larger angle predicted by Surgimap method (53.80 [Formula: see text] 9.79 [Formula: see text]), CAM-HA method (56.61 [Formula: see text] 8.58 [Formula: see text]), and HP-HA method (60.07 [Formula: see text] 13.58 [Formula: see text]), respectively (P [Formula: see text] 0.05). But no significant difference was found between the postoperative osteotomy angle and those of SFA method (51.24 [Formula: see text] 12.14 [Formula: see text]) and FBI method (48.08 [Formula: see text] 12.49 [Formula: see text]) (P [Formula: see text] 0.05).

Conclusion: For AS patients with thoracolumbar or lumbar kyphosis, the SFA method, FBI method, and Surgimap method can be used to predict the osteotomy angle precisely, however, considering the rationality of parameter settings and the operability, SFA method is relatively more suitable for such population.

References

Taurog J, Chhabra A, Colbert R . Ankylosing Spondylitis and Axial Spondyloarthritis. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(13):1303. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1609622. View

van Royen B, De Gast A, Smit T . Deformity planning for sagittal plane corrective osteotomies of the spine in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur Spine J. 2001; 9(6):492-8. PMC: 3611428. DOI: 10.1007/s005860000183. View

Braun J, Sieper J . Ankylosing spondylitis. Lancet. 2007; 369(9570):1379-1390. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60635-7. View

Le Huec J, Leijssen P, Duarte M, Aunoble S . Thoracolumbar imbalance analysis for osteotomy planification using a new method: FBI technique. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20 Suppl 5:669-80. PMC: 3175920. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1935-y. View

Aurouer N, Obeid I, Gille O, Pointillart V, Vital J . Computerized preoperative planning for correction of sagittal deformity of the spine. Surg Radiol Anat. 2009; 31(10):781-92. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-009-0524-9. View

Liu H, Yang C, Zheng Z, Ding W, Wang J, Wang H . Comparison of Smith-Petersen osteotomy and pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the correction of thoracolumbar kyphotic deformity in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(8):570-9. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000815. View

Lee J, Suh K, Kim J, Goh T . Analysis of sagittal balance of ankylosing spondylitis using spinopelvic parameters. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014; 27(3):E94-8. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31829186c1. View

Gupta M, Gupta S, Kelly M, Bridwell K . Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2020; 10(1). PMC: 7161731. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.19.00028. View

Yang B, Ondra S . A method for calculating the exact angle required during pedicle subtraction osteotomy for fixed sagittal deformity: comparison with the trigonometric method. Neurosurgery. 2006; 59(4 Suppl 2):ONS458-63. DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000232628.46247.15. View

10.

Song K, Zheng G, Zhang Y, Zhang X, Mao K, Wang Y . A new method for calculating the exact angle required for spinal osteotomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(10):E616-20. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828b3299. View

11.

Kubiak E, Moskovich R, Errico T, Di Cesare P . Orthopaedic management of ankylosing spondylitis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005; 13(4):267-78. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200507000-00006. View

12.

Koller H, Koller J, Mayer M, Hempfing A, Hitzl W . Osteotomies in ankylosing spondylitis: where, how many, and how much?. Eur Spine J. 2018; 27(Suppl 1):70-100. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5421-z. View

13.

Kim K, Park D, Lee S, Lee J . Results of Corrective Osteotomy and Treatment Strategy for Ankylosing Spondylitis with Kyphotic Deformity. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015; 7(3):330-6. PMC: 4553281. DOI: 10.4055/cios.2015.7.3.330. View

14.

Tarawneh A, Venkatesan M, Pasku D, Singh J, Quraishi N . Impact of pedicle subtraction osteotomy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures in patients undergoing surgery for adult spinal deformity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2020; 29(12):2953-2959. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-020-06439-y. View

15.

Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy J, 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(25):2224-31. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ee6bd4. View

16.

Ondra S, Marzouk S, Koski T, Silva F, Salehi S . Mathematical calculation of pedicle subtraction osteotomy size to allow precision correction of fixed sagittal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(25):E973-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000247950.02886.e5. View

17.

Lamartina C, Berjano P, Petruzzi M, Sinigaglia A, Casero G, Cecchinato R . Criteria to restore the sagittal balance in deformity and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21 Suppl 1:S27-31. PMC: 3325388. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2236-9. View

18.

Vialle R, Levassor N, Rillardon L, Templier A, Skalli W, Guigui P . Radiographic analysis of the sagittal alignment and balance of the spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(2):260-7. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02043. View

19.

Barrey C, Roussouly P, Le Huec J, DAcunzi G, Perrin G . Compensatory mechanisms contributing to keep the sagittal balance of the spine. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22 Suppl 6:S834-41. PMC: 3830026. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-3030-z. View

20.

Akbar M, Terran J, Ames C, Lafage V, Schwab F . Use of Surgimap Spine in sagittal plane analysis, osteotomy planning, and correction calculation. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2013; 24(2):163-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.nec.2012.12.007. View