Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical Alignment Goals for Adult Lumbar Scoliosis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Adult Lumbar Scoliosis

  • 1400 Accesses

Abstract

Surgical management of adult spinal deformity is associated with substantial improvements in health-related quality-of-life scores; provided it is indicated appropriately, a reasonable surgical approach has been selected, and major complications avoided. Parameters to consider in surgical decision-making include clinical presentation, disability level, prior response to nonoperative treatment, and radiographic characteristics of the deformity, and baseline health status of the patient. Coronal and sagittal alignment targets have been conventionally defined based on radiographic correlation with health-related quality-of-life scores. However, recent research shows age-related changes exist in the radiographic alignment of the spine, which is distinct from pathologic degenerative changes. Therefore, an individualized approach for alignment targets is optimal. Mathematical methods can be helpful to predict postoperative radiographic results, but they should be used cautiously because of their inherent limitations. To achieve the goals of alignment restoration, surgery for adult spinal deformity generally consists of three elements: decompression, realignment, and fusion. All three can be performed with various techniques and approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

ASD:

Adult spinal deformity

BMP:

Bone morphogenetic protein

C7PL:

C7 plumb line

CSVL:

Central sacral vertical line

HRQOL:

Health-related quality of life

LL:

Lumbar lordosis

ODI:

Oswestry Disability Index

PCS:

Physical component summary

PI:

Pelvic incidence

PI-LL:

Pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis

PSO:

Pedicle subtraction osteotomy

PT:

Pelvic tilt

SF-36:

Short-form health survey-36

SS:

Sacral slope

SVA:

Sagittal vertical axis

TPA:

T1 pelvic angle

T1-SPI:

T1-spinopelvic inclination

References

  1. Schwab F, Dubey A, Gamez L, et al. Adult scoliosis: prevalence, SF-36, and nutritional parameters in an elderly volunteer population. Spine. 2005;30:1082–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schwab FJ, Dubey A, Pagala M, et al. Adult scoliosis: a health assessment analysis by SF-36. Spine. 2003;28:602–6. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000049924.94414.BB.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pellisé F, Vila-Casademunt A, Ferrer M, et al. Impact on health related quality of life of adult spinal deformity (ASD) compared with other chronic conditions. Eur Spine J. 2014;24:3–11. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3542-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bess S, Line B, Fu K-M, et al. The health impact of symptomatic adult spinal deformity: comparison of deformity types to united states population norms and chronic diseases. Spine. 2015; doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001202.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Turner JD, Walker CT, Mundis GM, Kakarla UK. Health burden of adult spinal deformity compared with other chronic diseases. World Neurosurg. 2015;84:876–7. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.08.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Glassman SD, et al. Risk-benefit assessment of surgery for adult scoliosis: an analysis based on patient age. Spine. 2011;36:817–24. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e21783.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bridwell KH, Glassman S, Horton W, et al. Does treatment (nonoperative and operative) improve the two-year quality of life in patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: a prospective multicenter evidence-based medicine study. Spine. 2009;34:2171–8. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a8fdc8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Berven S, et al. Improvement of back pain with operative and nonoperative treatment in adults with scoliosis. Neurosurgery. 2009;65:86–93. ; discussion 93–4 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000347005.35282.6C.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Shaffrey CI, et al. The costs and benefits of nonoperative management for adult scoliosis. Spine. 2010;35:578–82. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b0f2f8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Slobodyanyuk K, Poorman CE, Smith JS, et al. Clinical improvement through nonoperative treatment of adult spinal deformity: who is likely to benefit? Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E2. doi:10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS1426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith JS, Fu K-M, Urban P, Shaffrey CI. Neurological symptoms and deficits in adults with scoliosis who present to a surgical clinic: incidence and association with the choice of operative versus nonoperative management. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9:326–31. doi:10.3171/SPI.2008.9.10.326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, et al. Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine. 2005;30:682–8. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000155425.04536.f7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Silva FE, Lenke LG. Adult degenerative scoliosis: evaluation and management. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E1. doi:10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee CKS, Kim YT, Hong YM, Yoo JH. Dynamic sagittal imbalance of the spine in degenerative flat back: significance of pelvic tilt in surgical treatment. Spine. 2001;26:2029–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Deschênes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G, et al. Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine. 2010;35:989–94. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bdcaa4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barrey C, Roussouly P, Perrin G, Le Huec J-C. Sagittal balance disorders in severe degenerative spine. Can we identify the compensatory mechanisms? Eur Spine J: Off Pub Eur Spine Soc, Eur Spinal Deformity Soc, Eur Sec Cervical Spine Res Soc. 2011;20(Suppl 5):626–33. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1930-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mendoza-Lattes S, Ries Z, Gao Y, Weinstein SL. Natural history of spinopelvic alignment differs from symptomatic deformity of the spine. Spine. 2010;35:E792–8. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d35ca9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Noseda O, et al. The vertical projection of the sum of the ground reactive forces of a standing patient is not the same as the C7 plumb line: a radiographic study of the sagittal alignment of 153 asymptomatic volunteers. Spine. 2006;31:E320–5. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000218263.58642.ff.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boulay C, Tardieu C, Hecquet J, et al. Sagittal alignment of spine and pelvis regulated by pelvic incidence: standard values and prediction of lordosis. Eur Spine J: Off Publication Eur Spine Soc, Eur Spinal Deformity Soc, Eur Sec Cervical Spine Res Soc. 2006;15:415–22. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0984-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Vialle R, Levassor N, Rillardon L, et al. Radiographic analysis of the sagittal alignment and balance of the spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:260–7. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02043.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G, Hecquet J, Marty C. Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J. 1998;7:99–103. doi:10.1007/s005860050038.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J, Roussouly P, Labelle H. Analysis of the sagittal balance of the spine and pelvis using shape and orientation parameters. J Spinal DisordTech. 2005;18:40–7. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000117542.88865.77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwab FJ, Lafage V, Boyce R, et al. Gravity line analysis in adult volunteers: age-related correlation with spinal parameters, pelvic parameters, and foot position. Spine. 2006;31:E959–67. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000248126.96737.0f.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, et al. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine. 2005;30:2024–9. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000179086.30449.96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lafage V, Schwab FJ, Patel A, et al. Pelvic tilt and truncal inclination: two key radiographic parameters in the setting of adults with spinal deformity. Spine. 2009;34:E599–606. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181aad219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S, et al. Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine. 2013;38:E803–12. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318292b7b9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schwab FJ, Smith V a, Biserni M, et al. (2002) Adult scoliosis: a quantitative radiographic and clinical analysis. Spine 27:387–392. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200202150-00012

  28. Schwab FJ, Farcy J, Bridwell K, et al. A clinical impact classification of scoliosis in the adult. Spine. 2006;31:2109–14. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000231725.38943.ab.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bao; H, Yan; P, Qiu; Y, et al. (2016) Coronal imbalance in degenerative lumbar scoliosis: Prevalence and influence on surgical decision-making for spine osteotomy. Bone Joint J 98-B:

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schwab FJ, Ungar B, Blondel B, et al. Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine. 2012;37:1077–82. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823e15e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith JS, Bess S, Shaffrey CI, et al. Dynamic changes of the pelvis and spine are key to predicting postoperative sagittal alignment after pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a critical analysis of preoperative planning techniques. Spine. 2012;37:845–53. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823b0892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Protopsaltis TS, Schwab FJ, Bronsard N, et al. The t1 pelvic angle, a novel radiographic measure of global sagittal deformity, accounts for both spinal inclination and pelvic tilt and correlates with health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:1631–40. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.01459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schwab FJ, Patel A, Ungar B, et al. Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine. 2010;35:2224–31. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ee6bd4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lafage R, Schwab F, Challier V, et al. Defining spino-pelvic alignment thresholds: should operative goals in adult spinal deformity surgery account for age? Spine. 2016;41:62–8. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000627.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ondra SL, Marzouk S, Koski T, et al. (2006) Mathematical calculation of pedicle subtraction osteotomy size to allow precision correction of fixed sagittal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:E973–E979. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000247950.02886.e5. 00007632-200612010-00024 [pii].

  37. Yang BP, Ondra SL. A method for calculating the exact angle required during pedicle subtraction osteotomy for fixed sagittal deformity: comparison with the trigonometric method. Neurosurgery. 2006;59:458–63. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000232628.46247.15.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ames CP, Smith JS, Scheer JK, et al. Impact of spinopelvic alignment on decision making in deformity surgery in adults: a review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:547–64. doi:10.3171/2012.2.SPINE11320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Le Huec J-CC, Leijssen P, Duarte M, Aunoble S. Thoracolumbar imbalance analysis for osteotomy planification using a new method: FBI technique. Eur Spine J: Off Pub Eur Spine Soc, Eur Spinal Deformity Soc, Eur Sec Cervical Spine Res Soc. 2011;20(Suppl 5):669–80. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1935-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schwab FJ, Lafage V, Patel A, Farcy J-P. Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine. 2009;34:1828–33. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a13c08.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Klineberg E, Schwab FJ, Ames CP, et al. Acute reciprocal changes distant from the site of spinal osteotomies affect global postoperative alignment. Adv Orthop. 2011;2011:415946. doi:10.4061/2011/415946.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Schwab FJ, Patel A, Shaffrey CI, et al. Sagittal realignment failures following pedicle subtraction osteotomy surgery: are we doing enough?: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:539–46. doi:10.3171/2012.2.SPINE11120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lafage V, Ames C, Schwab FJ, et al. Changes in thoracic kyphosis negatively impact sagittal alignment after lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a comprehensive radiographic analysis. Spine. 2012;37:E180–7. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318225b926.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mummaneni PV, Shaffrey CI, Lenke LG, et al. The minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery algorithm: a reproducible rational framework for decision making in minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E6. doi:10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS1413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mummaneni PV, Tu T-H, Ziewacz JE, et al. The role of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2013;24:231–48. doi:10.1016/j.nec.2012.12.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schwab F, Blondel B, Chay E, et al. The comprehensive anatomical spinal osteotomy classification. Neurosurgery. 2015;76(Suppl 1):S33–41. ; discussion S41 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000462076.73701.09.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. An analysis of sagittal spinal alignment following long adult lumbar instrumentation and fusion to L5 or S1: can we predict ideal lumbar lordosis? Spine. 2006;31:2343–52. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000238970.67552.f5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yang BP, Yang CW, Ondra SL. A novel mathematical model of the sagittal spine. Spine. 2007;32:466–70. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000255207.44141.e9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rose PS, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Role of pelvic incidence, thoracic kyphosis, and patient factors on sagittal plane correction following pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Spine. 2009;34:785–91. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819d0c86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Lafage V, Schwab FJ, Vira S, et al. Spino-pelvic parameters after surgery can be predicted: a preliminary formula and validation of standing alignment. Spine. 2011;36:1037–45. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181eb9469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lafage V, Bharucha NJ, Schwab FJ, et al. Multicenter validation of a formula predicting postoperative spinopelvic alignment. J Neurosur Spine. 2012;16:15–21. doi:10.3171/2011.8.SPINE11272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital for Special Surgery, Weil-Cornell School of Medicine, 535 E 70th St, New York, NY, USA

    Pouya Alijanipour MD, Hongda Bao MD & Frank Schwab MD

Authors
  1. Pouya Alijanipour MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hongda Bao MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Schwab MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Schwab MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California - Davis, Sacramento, California, USA

    Eric O. Klineberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Alijanipour, P., Bao, H., Schwab, F. (2017). Surgical Alignment Goals for Adult Lumbar Scoliosis. In: Klineberg, E. (eds) Adult Lumbar Scoliosis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47709-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47709-1_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47707-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47709-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation