Efficacy of Varying Surgical Approaches on Achieving Optimal Alignment in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Title

Spine (Phila Pa 1976)


washington; seattle; swedish neuro


BACKGROUND: The Roussouly, SRS-Schwab, and GAP classifications define alignment by spinal shape and deformity severity. The efficacy of different surgical approaches and techniques to successfully achieve these goals is not well understood.

PURPOSE: Identify the impact of surgical approach and/or technique on meeting complex realignment goals in adult spinal deformity(ASD) corrective-surgery.


METHODS: Included: ASD patients fused to pelvis with two-year(2Y) data. Patients were categorized by: 1)Roussouly: matching current and theoretical spinal shapes; 2)improving in SRS-Schwab modifiers(0, +, ++); 3)improving GAP Proportionality by 2Y. ANCOVA and multivariable logistic regression analyses controlling for age, levels fused, baseline deformity, and three-column osteotomy usage compared the effect of different surgical approaches, interbody and osteotomy use on meeting realignment goals.

RESULTS: 693 ASD patients were included. By surgical approach, 65.7% were posterior-only and 34.3% underwent anterior-posterior(AP) approach with 76% receiving an osteotomy(21.8% 3CO). By 2Y, 34% matched Roussouly, 58% improved in GAP, 45% in SRS-Schwab PT, 62% SVA, and 70% PI-LL. Combined approaches were most effective for improvement in PT(OR: 1.7,[1.1-2.5]) and GAP(OR: 2.2,[1.5-3.2]). Specifically, ALIFs below L3 demonstrated higher rates of improvement versus TLIFs in Roussouly(OR: 1.7, [1.1-2.5]) and GAP(OR: 1.9, [1.3-2.7]). Patients undergoing PSO at L3 or L4 were more likely to improve in PT(OR: 2.0,[1.0-5.2]) and PI-LL(OR: 3.8[1.4-9.8]). Clinically, patients undergoing combined approach demonstrated higher rates of meeting SCB in ODI by 2Y while minimizing rates of PJF, most often with an ALIF at L5-S1(ODI-SCB: OR: 1.4,[1.1-2.0];PJF: OR: 0.4,[0.2-0.8]).

CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing ASD realignment, optimal lumbar shape and proportion can be achieved more often with a combined approach. While TLIFs incorporating a three-column osteotomy at L3 and L4 can restore lordosis and normalize pelvic compensation, ALIFs at L5-S1 were most likely to achieve complex realignment goals with an added clinical benefit and mitigation of junctional failure.

Clinical Institute

Neurosciences (Brain & Spine)

Clinical Institute

Orthopedics & Sports Medicine