Advertisement

Spine Surgery pp 649-657 | Cite as

Proximal Junctional Kyphosis Despite Best Efforts in Planning and Execution

  • Caglar Yilgor
  • R. Emre Acaroglu
Chapter

Abstract

Concepts in spinal deformity surgery as well as the instrumentation used to surgically treat spinal deformities has constantly been evolving in the last few decades. The biomechanics of the growing, grown and degenerated spine, and the biomechanical effects of the implants used are not yet fully understood. After instrumented fusion, the interchange between the instrumented and non-instrumented spinal segments are referred to as junctional area.

References

  1. 1.
    Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Rinella A, Edwards C 2nd. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine. 2005;30:1643–9. (EBM Level III).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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. (EBM Level II).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arlet V, Aebi M. Junctional spinal disorders in operated adult spinal deformities: present understanding and future perspectives. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(Suppl 2):S276–95. (EBM Level III).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lau D, Clark AJ, Scheer JK, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review of the literature as a background to classification development. Spine. 2014;39:2093–102. (EBM Level N/A).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Glattes CR, Rhim S, Cheh G. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine. 2008;33:2179–84. (EBM Level III).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cammarata M, Aubin CE, Wang X, Mac-Thiong JM. Biomechanical risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a detailed numerical analysis of surgical instrumentation variables. Spine. 2014;39:E500–7. (EBM Level N/A).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Berven S, et al. Changes in radiographic and clinical outcomes with primary treatment adult spinal deformity surgeries from two years to three- to five-years follow-up. Spine. 2010;35:1849–54. (EBM Level III).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yilgor C, Yavuz Y, Sogunmez N, et al. Relative pelvic version (RPV): an individualized pelvic incidence-based proportional parameter that quantifies pelvic version more precisely than pelvic tilt. Spine J. 2018;  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.03.001. pii: S1529-9430(18)30084-6. (EBM Level II).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Yavuz Y, et al. Relative lumbar lordosis and lordosis distribution index: individualized pelvic incidence-based proportional parameters that quantify lumbar lordosis more precisely than the concept of pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43:E5. (EBM Level II).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caglar Yilgor
    • 1
  • R. Emre Acaroglu
    • 2
  1. 1.Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedics and TraumatologyIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Ankara Spine CenterAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations