Archives of Surgery and Surgical Education Category: Clinical Type: Research Article

Health Related Quality of Life and Spinopelvic Parameters in Sagittal Imbalance Patients: A Comparison of Multilevel Smith-Petersen Osteotomy (Spo) and Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy (Pso)

Esteban Blanco Marta1*, Betegon Nicolas Jesus1Hernandez Encinas Jose1Lozano Munoz Ana1, Blanco Hortas Andres3Estany Gestal Ana3, Fernandez Bances Ignacio1, Lombao Iglesias Domingo2Villar Perez Julio1 and Fernandez Gonzalez Manuel1

1 Department Of Orthopedic Surgery, Universitary Hospital Of Leon, Leon, Spain
2 Department Of Orthopedic Surgery, Universitary Hospital Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain
3 Epidemiology And Clinical Research Unit, Fundation Ramon Domínguez, Santiago De Compostela, Spain

*Corresponding Author(s):
Esteban Blanco Marta
Department Of Orthopedic Surgery, Universitary Hospital Of Leon, Leon, Spain
Tel:+34 650894501,
Email:mestebanb.asitec@saludcastillayleon.es

Received Date: Jan 31, 2022
Accepted Date: Feb 22, 2022
Published Date: Feb 28, 2022

Abstract

Study Design: A multicenter, retrospective review of surgical patients with sagittal imbalance. 

Objective: Determine if the use of one type of osteotomy is justified instead of the other by basing on improvements in the quality of life and radiographical parameters after sagittal imbalance correction. 

Summary of background data: ASD includes broad ranges of clinical and radiographical conditions that could be associated with a decrease in quality of life of patients. SPO and PSO are the techniques most commonly used to correct sagittal imbalance. 

Methods: Retrospective study with patients from two hospitals who suffered from sagittal imbalance and underwent PSO/SPO with a minimum one-year follow-up. Radiographic parameters measured were Thoracic Kyphosis (TK), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), Coob Angle (Cobb), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), and sacral slope (SS). Health Related Quality of Life was obtained by ODI, SRS-22, and VAS. Two analyses: (1) Pre-/postoperative data comparison of each technique (paired sample t-test). (2) Magnitude of change comparison between SPO and PSO (independent samples t-test). 

Results: 65 patients with a mean age of 67.7 (±9.59) years, 70.8% female. Two groups: SPO (48 cases with a mean of 2.13 osteotomies), PSO (17, one PSO in each). In the SPO group significant improvements were seen TK (Pre: 31.38±16.92; Post: 41.37±11.67, p<0.001), LL (Pre: 31.20±15.69; Post: 38.63±9.62, p<0.001), and Cobb (Pre: 25.42±15.84; Post: 9.49±8.60, p<0.001), as well as in the quality of life questionnaires. In the PSO group significant improvements were determined in TK (Pre: 32.26±19.48; Post: 42.51±16.23, p=0.003), LL (Pre: 20.71±12.50; Post: 38.54±8.62, p<0.001), and SVA (Pre: 156.00±37.79; Post: 98.65±38.72, p<0.001) and in total SRS-22 (Pre: 2.13±0.42; Post: 3.10±0.87, p<0.001) and self- image subdomain (Pre: 2.06±0.54; Post: 2.99±0.77, p=0.002), mental health (Pre: 2.06±0.54; Post: 3.59±1.08, p<0.001), and function (Pre: 2.31±0.43; Post: 2.96±0.92, p=0.010). The comparison between SPO/PSO revealed no significant improvements in both techniques. Regarding quality of life, significant better scoring was obtained in VAS-PSO group (-3.29±5.77) in comparison with SPO-group (-2.73±3.49), p=0.009. However, as a whole, quality of life improves more in both osteotomies groups. 

Conclusion: Significant quality of life improvements are seen in patients with sagittal imbalance after being treated with SPO and PSO techniques. Differences between both techniques were not found.

Keywords

Multilevel smith-petersen osteotomy; Pedicle subtraction osteotomy; Sagittal imbalance patients; Spinopelvic parameters

Introduction

Adult spine deformity may occur as a result of a number of conditions that include idiopathic scoliosis, de novo and/or degenerative curves, each of which leads to imbalance of the structural support of the spinal column [1,2]. To assume a standing position with a minimal energy expenditure is the result of ideal spinal alignment, normally this is reached through a complex relationship between the physiologic curvatures of the spine, the morphology of the pelvis, and the musculature of the axial skeleton [3,4]. The cone of economy concept was first proposed by Dubousset which refers to a stable region of standing posture and is generally designed to assessing balance in spinal deformity patients [5]. Concept of optimal spinal balance is not clearly defined, nevertheless several radiographical parameters have been used as a guide of sagittal alignment [6]. 

To analyze regional alignement it is normally used values of Thoracic Kyphosis (TK) by Cobb Measurements (Cobb) and Lumbar Lordosis (LL); more recently, pelvic parameters have also been examined to improve the evaluation of sagittal plane balance being most used one the plumb of C7 defined as Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA) which is a radiographical parameter which measures the distance between the plumb C7 and the posterior superior corner of S1 in the sagittal plane [7-10]. In order to obtain a beneficial global spinal realignement SVA should be attempted to be less than 50mm. In this way it gets physiologic standing posture and level gaze [4,11]. This term is our principal indication of sagittal imbalance. 

In many cases the osteotomies, which are complex reconstructive procedures, are indicated to correct and restore global balance [11]. Authors suggest the major factors to choose the type of osteotomy are bone density, stiffness, surgeon`s experience, type of deformity, magnitude of the curve and the condition of the spine (spinoplevic juntion and global spinal balance) [12,13]. 

SPO (Smith-Petersen osteotomy) and PSO (pedicle subtraction osteotomy) are the most common choices of the osteotomies in the literature [14-16]. Main difference between these two types of osteotomies is the degree of correction per spinal level, SPO provides appromimately 10° and PSO allows for a segmental correction of 30-40°; however, there are other distinctions such as, SPO procedure maintains a reduction in operative time, blood loss and a risk of neurological complications when compared with other techniques; nevertheless, it has disadvantages for instance less amount of sagittal plane correction carrying an increased risk of coronal decompensation. On the other hand, PSO procedure is generally used for the treatment of idiopathic and/or iatrogenic flat back deformity either fixed sagittal imbalance or both sagittal and coronal imbalance, but these techniques are fraught with complications [16-20]. 

Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) measurements are used to assess the outcomes of a different treatment of ASD in general and in particular, concerning this study, sagittal imbalance [2]. Authors report that there is an important connection between sagittal imbalance and unsatisfactory HRQOL outcomes; in fact, pain and disability are recognized as effect of sagittal plane malalignment [21-24]. However, after correction imbalance surgery, HRQOL questionnaires such as ODI and SRS22 get an improvement in their outcomes [25-27]. 

The aim of this study is to compare two techniques of osteotomies (SPO and PSO) based on an improvement in HRQOL and a restoration of radiographical parameters after spinal realignment surgery.

Material and Methods

Database 

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from multicenter database of sagittal imbalance patients. 

Inclusion/exclusion criteria 

Inclusion criteria for the whole database were: over 18 years old and the presence of spinal deformity, scoliosis Cobb angle of 20° or greater, pelvic tilt (PT) of 25° or greater, and/or Thoracic Kyphosis (TK) of 60° or more. The minimum of instrumented vertebra were [4]. The present study included patients only with completed and 2 year follow-up. 

Patients who suffered from ankylosing spondylitis, neuromuscular diseases, history or clinical signs of hip, pelvic or lower limbs, previous spine surgery, spinal compression fractures, metabolic bone disease, infection or tumor were excluded. 

Data collection 

Demographic and surgical data: The demographic and clinical data were obtained for each patient: age, sex, Body Mass Index (BMI), instrumented levels, time of surgery and bleeding. The presence of rigid sagittal deformity, which could not be corrected without the use of osteotomies, was the main indication for surgery. 

Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL): Standardized HRQOL measures included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) back, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22), and were collected at baseline and at the end of follow-up. 

Radiographical analysis: The horizontal distance between C7PL and S1 SVA greater than 50mm is considered to be sagittal imbalance [28]. In this study, we define the distance greater than 50mm previously mencioned as sagittal imbalance. 

Radiographic evaluation mainly included standard digital standing lateral and anterior–posterior radiographs of the entire spine and pelvis which were obtained before surgery and the latest clinical follow-up. Standing AP radiographs were obtained with the knees and hips fully extended. Standing lateral radiographs were taken with fingers on the clavicles of forward elevation, and knees and hips fully extended [28-30]. The measurements were obtained in base on descriptions of Spinal Deformity Study Group (SDSG) [31]. 

Statistical analysis 

Statistical analysis was performed by using SPSS v21 (IBM). First a paired sample t-test was carry out for the comparison of each technique and second independent samples t-test were made on the magnitude of change by comparing SPO and PSO.

Results

Demographic characteristics 

65 patients with a 2 year follow-up, whom have undergone vertebral column osteotomies (48 SPOs and 17 PSOs) and were followed for at least one year, were included and then evaluated in this study. Within this population, 70.8% (n=46) were female, mean age of the cohort was 67.7±9.59 years, the average number of levels fused was 8±2.36, with an operative time of 372±90.54 minutes, 356.50±89.12mL of estimated blood loss and BMI was 27.73±3.42. 

Before surgery, the patients included in this study had undergone traditional conservative measures which were not successful; examples of these types of treatments are: Use of nonsteroidal medications, physical therapy and modification of lifestyle prior to surgery for more than 3 months. 

Radiographical outcomes 

In SPO group resulted in correction of TK from 31.38±16.92° to 41.37±11.67° (p<0.001), LL from 31.20±15.69° to 38.63±6.92° (p<0.001), Cobb from 25.42±15.84° to 9.49±8.60° (p<0.001) there are no statistically significant changes in other radiographical parameters (Table 1). Statistically significant differences in spinopelvic parameters were not found in PSO group (Table 2), however changes were reported in TK being 32.26±19.48° before surgery and 42.51±16.23° after surgery (p=0.003) and likewise with LL pre-surgery 20.71±12.50° and post-surgery 38.54±8.62°. It should be pointed out that SVA had a highly value before surgery (156±37.79mm) and it would be improved after the procedure (98.65±38.72mm) (p<0.001). 

Radiological Measurements

Pre-Surgery

Post-Surgery

P-value**

TK (°)

31.38±16.92

41.37±11.67

<0.001

LL (°)

31.20±15.69

38.63±9.62

<0.001

COBB (°)

25.42±15.84

9.49±8.60

<0.001

SVA (mm)

114.59±66.99

92.05±48.74

ns***

PT (°)

28.25±8.06

27.05±8.41

ns***

PI (°)

57.01±10.64

59.37±10.33

ns***

SS (°)

27.65±11.06

29.90±7.79

ns***

Table 1: Pre and post surgery radiographic parameters of patients who underwent Smith-Petersen Osteotomy (SPO) for adult spinal deformity.

Note: Mean±standard deviation is presented. ** Statistically significant values were considered p<0.05. *** ns=not significant. TK thoracic kyphosis, LL lumbar lordosis, COBB Cobb angle, PT pelvic tilt, PI pelvic incidence, SS sacral slope. 

Radiological Measurements

Pre-Surgery

Post-Surgery

P-value**

TK (°)

32.26±19.48

42.51±16.23

.003

LL (°)

20.71±12.5

38.54±8.62

<0.001

COBB (°)

19.10±16.98

10.20±10.98

ns***

SVA (mm)

156±37.79

98.65±38.72

<0.001

PT (°)

28.83±9.47

28.35±11.01

ns***

PI (°)

57.66 ±11.65

55.22±11.65

ns***

SS (°)

28.53±7.35

26.93±7.35

ns***

Table 2: Pre and post surgery radiographic parameters of patients who underwent Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy (PSO) for adult spinal deformity.

Note: Mean±standard deviation is presented. ** Statistically significant values were considered p<0.05. *** ns=not significant. TK thoracic kyphosis, LL lumbar lordosis, COBB Cobb angle, PT pelvic tilt, PI pelvic incidence, SS sacral slope. 

Health-related quality of life 

Regarding HRQOL we found statistically significant improvement in SPO patients in all questionnaires (Table 3). In PSO group, after surgery, SRS22 function, self-image, mental health and total subdomains significantly increased (improved HRQOL) from 2.31±0.43 to 2.96±0.90 (p=0.010), 2.06±0.54 to 2.99±0.77 (p=0.002), 2.06±0.54 to 3.59±1.08 (p<0.001) and 2.13±0.42 to 3.10±0.87 (p<0.001) respectively and curiously, we did not find significant differences in VAS questionnaire, even though there was a clear improvement (Table 3), this is probably due to the great variability of the sample. 

 

Smith-Petersen Osteotomy (SPO)

Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy (PSO)

HRQOL questionnaires

Pre-Surgery

Post-Surgery

P-value**

Pre-Surgery

Post-Surgery

P-value**

VAS back

7.93±2.05

5.20±3.36

<0.001

8.13±3.07

4.87±3.38

ns***

ODI

65.16±18.07

47.61±21

<0.001

53.42±21.40

42.62±21.08

ns***

SRS22-Function

2.21±0.41

2.67±0.76

0.003

2.31±0.43

2.96±0.90

0.010

SRS22-Pain

1.86±0.65

2.81±1.06

<0.001

1.91±0.847

2.88±1.28

ns***

SRS22-Selfimage

1.98±0.53

3.03±0.80

<0.001

2.06±0.54

2.99±0.77

0.002

SRS22-Mental health

2.14±0.69

3.39±0.84

<0.001

2.06±0.54

3.59±1.08

<0.001

SRS22-Total

2.08±0.44

2.98±0.73

<0.001

2.13±0.42

3.10±0.87

<0.001

Table 3: Outcomes of Health Related Quality Of Life (HRQOL) questionnaires in Smith-Petersen Osteotomy (SPO) and pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) patients for adult spinal deformity.

Note: Mean±standard deviation is presented. ** Statistically significant values were considered p<0.05 *** ns=not significant. 

Analysis of the difference pre-post in radiographical parameters and quality of life at follow-up 

Finally, we wanted to verify if one technique provided more benefits, both radiographical and quality of life compared to the other, therefore, an analysis about pre-post differences in the two groups of osteotomies was carried out, both in radiographical parameters and in HRQOL, no statistically significant differences were found between both techniques. However, we can see that there is a greater correction of LL with the PSO (17.83±13.86°) with respect to the SPO (7.43±14.38°) (p=0.830), on the contrary, it occurs with an angle of Cobb (-8.9±13.60°) in PSO and (-15.93±12.95°) in SPO (p = 0.987), additionally PSO provides a great SVA correction (-57.35±43.70) in relation to SPO (-22.54±62.80) (p=0.224) (Table 4). In respect of HRQOL, a negative value indicates that the pre value is greater than the post value, in questionnaires such as the VAS or the ODI, having a lower score means getting an improvement, in contrast to what happens with SRS22, high values of the questionnaire mean better quality of life; therefore, the differences in the SRS22 subdomains are positive (Table 5). 

 

Type of Osteotomy

Values

P-value

TK_dif (°)

PSO

10.25±11.99

0.221

SPO

9.99±16.85

LL_dif (°)

PSO

17.83±13.86

0.83

SPO

7.43±14.38

COBB_dif (°)

PSO

-8.9±13.60

0.987

SPO

-15.93±12.95

SVA_dif (mm)

PSO

-57.35±43.70

0.224

SPO

-22.54±62.80

PT_dif (°)

PSO

-0.48±6.81

0.118

SPO

-1.20±9.24

PI_dif (°)

PSO

-2.44±10.77

0.958

SPO

2.36±10.19

SS_dif (°)

PSO

-1.60±7.94

0.364

SPO

3.25±10.45

Table 4: Outcomes of the difference pre-post surgery of radiological parameters in Smith-Petersen Osteotomy (SPO) and Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy (PSO).

Note: Mean±standard deviation is presented. ** Statistically significant values were considered p<0.05. TK thoracic kyphosis, LL lumbar lordosis, COBB Cobb angle, PT pelvic tilt, PI pelvic incidence, SS sacral slope. 

   

Type of osteotomy

Values

P-value

VAS back_dif

PSO

-3,29±5,77

,009

SPO

-2,73±3,49

 

ODI_dif

PSO

-14,14±26,08

,834

SPO

-17,34±25,50

 

SRS22

Function_dif

PSO

0,66±0,82

,318

SPO

0,47±0,74

 

Pain_dif

PSO

0,96±1,49

,182

SPO

0,95±1,08

 

Selfimage_dif

PSO

0,89±0,87

,790

SPO

1,04±0,87

 

Mental health_dif

PSO

1,60±1,10

,615

SPO

1,25±1,01

 

Total_dif

PSO

0,98±0,87

,224

SPO

0,91±0,74

 

Table 5: Outcomes of the difference pre-post surgery of quality of life in Smith-Petersen Osteotomy (SPO) and Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy (PSO).

Note: Mean±standard deviation is presented. ** Statistically significant values were considered p<0.05.

Discussion

The main purpose of the current study was to compare two types of principal osteotomies to restore the sagittal plane. On the assumption that the indication is different in these osteotomies. As for SPO is used for mild to moderate deformity with mobile intervertebral discs and it offers up to 10 correction grades per osteotomy so it could be performed in any level in the thoracolumbar spine [32]. This procedure is easier and safer than the PSO; in addition, it reduces the surgery time, blood loss and neurological complications. Nevertheless, this osteotomy carries some disadvantages, such as less sagittal plane correction and more risks of coronal decompensation [13]. Regarding PSO, a closing wegde osteotomy is generally used for the fixed deformity and it obtains 30-40 grades of segmental correction and more lordosis, so, when possible, it is recommended making it in L2 or L3 with the purpose of decreasing the neurological risk associated [33]. This osteotomy has an elevated number of complications despite of the fact that it achieves a greater sagittal plane correction [34,35]. 

It is important to obtain a suitable correction of sagittal malalignment in order to balance the head over the sacrum. Many authors have postulated that patients are more predisposed to develop loss of correction and pseudoarthosis if the sagittal imbalance is not restored at time of the osteotomy, in addition PSO could restore malalignment more satisfactorily [32,34-37], the final data showed that the postoperative SVA correction was 57.35(±43.70)mm and 22.54±(62.809)mm, for PSO and SPO respectively; therefore, the correction of SVA was consistent, although comparison between groups of osteotomies was not statistically significant. In fact, no statistical differences were found in all radiological measurements analyzed to contrast both techniques [13,16]. 

In the literature, no many articles have investigated the comparison between PSO and SPO in relation with HRQOL, this could be an innovative line of research. However, it is known that poor HRQOL outcomes are associated with sagittal imbalance [21-24]. Kim and coworkers reported that, in spite of improvement, there were no differences between pre-post in ODI and SRS-22 questionnaires at 2 year follow-up like our study shows [25]. In the same way these questionnaires are favorable after realignment surgery [26,27], especially when global realignment is totally recuperated (SVA<50mm) [4]. 

In our study, with both techniques, an improvement in radiographical measurements and HRQOL were achieved when they were analyzed individually. However, we cannot state which technique is better as statistically significant differences have not been found in the parameters previously described. 

This study has certain limitations, information must be taken with caution since sample size is low and we are aware of the fact that indications are different for both techniques. However, the importance of HRQOL in decision making should be taken in to account. In future studies, it will be necessary to make a thorough analysis including variables which could influence our outcomes like the complications associated to these procedures.

Conclusion

Adult spinal deformity often requires major reconstructive procedures such as spinal osteotomy techniques, which include valuable tools like SPO and PSO. The correction of the sagittal profile can be achieved by performing these procedures. Sagittal plane imbalance is normally associated with poor HRQOL scores and these techniques may improve these results. Despite good clinical and radiographic outcomes, we can not claim which technique is better. That is why, future studies like the one we have here should be carry out in order to provide more information with new variables which can bring benefits in decision making.

Acknowledgment

We are grateful for support from the Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Leon.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Good CR, Auerbach JD, O’Leary PT, Schuler TC (2011) Adult spine deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 4: 159-167.
  2. Ayhan S, Aykac B, Yuksel S, Guler UO, Pellise F, et al. (2016) Safety and efficacy of osteotomies in adult spinal deformity: what happens in the first year? Eur Spine J 25: 2471-2479.
  3. Angevine PD, Bridwell KH (2006) Sagittal Imbalance. Neurosurg. Clin N Am 17: 353-363.
  4. Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy JP, Lafage V (2010) Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: How much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine 35: 2224-2231.
  5. Dubousset J (2001) Three-Dimensional analysis of the scoliotic deformity. In: Pediatric spine: Principles and practice. Raven Press, New York, USA.
  6. Lafage V, Schwab F, Skalli W, Hawkinson N, Gagey PM, et al. (2008) Standing balance and sagittal plane spinal deformity analysis of spinopelvic and gravity line parameters. Spine 33: 1572-1578.
  7. McLean IP, Gillan MG, Ross JC, Aspden RM, Porter RW (1996) A comparison of methods for measuring trunk list: A simple plumbline is the best. Spine 21: 1667-1670.
  8. Jackson RP, McManus AC (1994) Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age5 sex, and size: A prospective controlled clinical study. Spine 19: 1611-1618.
  9. Boulay C, Tardieu C, Hecquet J, Mouilleseaux B, Marty C, et al. (2006) Sagittal alignment of spine and pelvis regulated by pelvic incidence: Standard values and prediction of lordosis. Eur Spine J 15: 415-422.
  10. Jackson RP, Peterson MD, McManus AC, Hales C (1998) Compensatory spinopelvic balance over the hip axis and better reliability in measuring lordosis to the pelvic radius on standing lateral radiographs of adult volunteers and patients. Spine 23: 1750-1767.
  11. Savage JW, Patel AA (2014) Fixed sagittal plane imbalance. Glob Spine J 4: 287-295.
  12. Garbossa D, Pejrona M, Damilano M, Sansone V, Ducati A, et al. (2014) Pelvic parameters and global spine balance for spine degenerative disease: The importance of containing for the well being of content. Eur. Spine J 23: 616-627.
  13. Enercan M, Ozturk C, Kahraman S, Sar?er M, Hamzaoglu A, et al. (2013) Osteotomies/spinal column resections in adult deformity. Eur Spine J 22: 254-264.
  14. Scudese VA, Calabro JJ (1963) Vertebral wedge osteotomy. Correction of Rheumatoid (Ankylosing) Spondylitis. JAMA 186: 627-631.
  15. Smith-Petersen MN, Larson CB, Aufranc OE (1969) Osteotomy of the spine for correction of flexion deformity in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 66: 6-9.
  16. Liu H, Yang C, Zheng Z, Ding W, Wang J, et al. (2015) 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 40: 570-579.
  17. Adams JC (1952) Technique, dangers and safeguards in osteotomy of the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 34: 226-232.
  18. Li F, Claude Sagi H, Liu B, et al. (2001) Comparative evaluation of single-level closing-wedge vertebral osteotomies for the correction of fixed kyphotic deformity of the lumbar spine: A Cadaveric study. Spine 26: 2385-2391.
  19. Bridwell KH, Lewis SJ, Lenke LG, Baldus C, Blanke K (2003) Pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the treatment of fixed sagittal imbalance. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85: 454-463.
  20. Thiranont N, Netrawichien P (1993) Transpedicular decancellation closed wedge vertebral osteotomy for treatment of fixed flexion deformity of spine in ankylosing spondylitis. Spine 18: 2517-2522.
  21. Joseph SA, Moreno AP, Brandoff J, Casden AC, Kuflik P, et al. (2009) Sagittal plane deformity in the adult patient. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17: 378-388.
  22. Lafage V, Schwab F, Patel A, Hawkinson N, Farcy JP (2009) Pelvic tilt and truncal inclination: Two key radiographic parameters in the setting of adults with spinal deformity. Spine 34: 599-606.
  23. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, et al. (2005) The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine 30: 2024-2029.
  24. Schwab FJ, Smith VA, Biserni M, Gamez L, Farcy JPC, et al. (2002) Adult scoliosis: A quantitative radiographic and clinical analysis. Spine 27: 387-392.
  25. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cheh G, Baldus C (2007) Results of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomies for fixed sagittal imbalance: A minimum 5-year follow-up study. Spine 32: 2189-2197.
  26. Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, Lee JH, Jeong BO (2012) Outcome of pedicle subtraction osteotomies for fixed sagittal imbalance of multiple etiologies: A retrospective review of 140 patients. Spine 37: 1667-1675.
  27. Yang BP, Ondra SL, Chen LA, Jung HS, Koski TR, et al. (2006) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of thoracic and lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy for fixed sagittal imbalance. J Neurosurg Spine 5: 9-17.
  28. Booth KC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Baldus CR, Blanke KM (1999) Complications and predictive factors for the successful treatment of flatback deformity (fixed sagittal imbalance). Spine 24: 1712-1720.
  29. Faro FD, Marks MC, Pawelek J, Newton PO (2004) Evaluation of a functional position for lateral radiograph acquisition in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29: 2284-2289.
  30. Horton WC, Brown CW, Bridwell KH, Glassman SD, Suk SI, et al. (2005) Is there an optimal patient stance for obtaining a lateral 36″ radiograph? A critical comparison of three techniques. Spine 30: 427-433.
  31. O’Brien M, Kuklo T, Blanke K, Lenke LG (2008) Radiographic Measurement Manual. Spinal Deformity Study Group.
  32. Cho KJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Berra A, Baldus C, et al. (2005) Comparison of Smith-Petersen versus pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the correction of fixed sagittal imbalance. Spine 30: 2030-2037.
  33. Bridwell KH (2006) Decision making regarding Smith-Petersen vs. pedicle subtraction osteotomy vs. vertebral column resection for spinal deformity. Spine 31: 171-178.
  34. Bridwell KH, Lewis SJ, Rinella A, Lenke LG, Baldus LC, et al. (2004) Pedicle subtraction osteomy for the treatment of fixed sagittal imbalance. Surgical technique. J Bone Jointt Surg Am 86: 44-50.
  35. Berven SH, Deviren V, Smith JA, Emami A, Hu SS, et al. (2001) Management of fixed sagittal plane deformity: Results of the transpedicular wedge resection osteotomy. Spine 26: 2036-2043.
  36. Lagrone MO, Bradford DS, Moe JH, Lonstein JE, Winter RB, et al. (1988) Treatment of symptomatic flatback after spinal fusion. Bone Joint Surg Am 70: 569-580.
  37. Voos K, Boachie-Adjei O, Rawlins BA (2001) Multiple vertebral osteotomies in the treatment of rigid adult spine deformities. Spine 26: 526-533.

Citation: Marta EB, Jesus BN, Jose HE, Ana LM, Andrés BH, et al. (2022) Health Related Quality of Life and Spinopelvic Parameters in Sagittal Imbalance Patients: A Comparison of Multilevel Smith-Petersen Osteotomy (Spo) and Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy (Pso). Archiv Surg S Educ 4: 039.

Copyright: © 2022  Esteban Blanco Marta, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Herald Scholarly Open Access is a leading, internationally publishing house in the fields of Sciences. Our mission is to provide an access to knowledge globally.



© 2023, Copyrights Herald Scholarly Open Access. All Rights Reserved!