Impact of lumbar fusion on spinopelvic sagittal alignment from standing to sitting position: which factor is associated with postoperative functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness?

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of lumbar fusion on spinopelvic sagittal alignment from standing to sitting position and the influencing factors of postoperative functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness. METHODS: A total of 107 patients who undertook posterior lumbar interbody fusion were included. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (lumbosacral fusion; n = 43) and Group B (floating fusion; n = 64). Spinopelvic parameters in standing and sitting position including pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), fusion segment lordosis (FSL), upper residual lordosis (URL), lower residual lordosis (LRL), thoracic kyphosis (TK), thoracolumbar kyphosis (TLK), sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and T1 pelvic angle (TPA) were measured before and after lumbar fusion. The Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI) was used to assess functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness. RESULTS: Accompanied by increased postoperative LSDI, the values of changes from standing to sitting (∆) were reduced in some parameters compared with the preoperative values. ∆PT and ∆SS significantly decreased in both two groups. In Group A, ∆LL significantly decreased with increased ∆URL. In Group B, ∆LL, ∆URL and ∆LRL showed no significant difference before and after surgery. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that age and ∆PT independently influenced the postoperative LSDI in Group A. CONCLUSION: After lumbar fusion, changes of lumbopelvic sagittal parameters from standing to sitting would be restricted. Adjacent segment lordosis could partially compensate for this restriction. For patients with lumbosacral fusion, postoperative functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness were related to age and the postoperative ∆PT from standing to sitting.

Changes in pain sensitivity and spinal stiffness in relation to responder status following spinal manipulative therapy in chronic low Back pain: a secondary explorative analysis of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In a prior randomized trial, we demonstrated that participants receiving spinal manipulative therapy at a pain-sensitive segment instead of a stiff segment experienced increased mechanical pressure pain thresholds. We hypothesized that the targeted segment mediated this increase through a segment-dependent neurophysiological reflective pathway. Presently, it is not known if this decrease in pain sensitivity is associated with clinical improvement. Therefore, we performed an explorative analysis to examine if changes in experimental pain sensitivity (mechanical and thermal) and lumbar stiffness were further dependent on clinical improvement in disability and patient-reported low back pain. METHODS: This study is a secondary explorative analysis of data from the randomized trial that compared 132 participants with chronic low back pain who received lumbar spinal manipulative therapy applied at either i) the stiffest segment or ii) the segment having the lowest pain threshold (i.e., the most pain-sensitive segment). We collected data at baseline, after the fourth session of spinal manipulation, and at 14-days follow-up. Participants were dichotomized into responders/non-responders using different clinical variables (disability and patient-reported low back pain) with varying threshold values (0, 30, and 50% improvement). Mixed models were used to assess changes in experimental outcomes (stiffness and pain sensitivity). The fixed interaction terms were time, segment allocation, and responder status. RESULTS: We observed a significant increase in mechanical pressure pain thresholds for the group, which received spinal manipulative therapy at the most pain-sensitive segment independent of whether they improved clinically or not. Those who received spinal manipulation at the stiffest segment also demonstrated increased mechanical pain sensitivity, but only in the subgroup with clinical improvement. We did not observe any changes in lumbar stiffness. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest the existence of two different mechanistic pathways associated with the spinal manipulation target. i) A decrease of mechanical pain sensitivity independent of clinical outcome (neurophysiological) and ii) a decrease as a reflection of the clinical outcome. Together, these observations may provide a novel framework that improves our understanding of why some respond to spinal manipulative therapy while others do not. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04086667 registered retrospectively September 11th 2019.

Psychometric Evaluation and External Validity of the Japanese Version of Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index.

Introduction: Long fusion surgery for adult spinal deformity may restrict activities of daily living due to lumbar stiffness. While the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI) can help assess lumbar stiffness, in Asia the external validity of this questionnaire has not been sufficiently examined. We performed the psychometric evaluation and external validation of the Japanese version of the LSDI (LSDI-J). Methods: Fifty consecutive patients (14 males and 36 females; mean age 70.6 years) who underwent lumbar fusion surgery at our institution a minimum of one year after surgery and who visited the outpatient clinic between April and May 2019, were surveyed using the LSDI-J. The mean number of fusion levels was 4.4. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated for internal consistency, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to evaluate reliability. External validity was assessed by comparisons with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), and the lumbar range of motion (LROM) with LSDI-J scores. Results: Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.652 overall, and 0.849 after excluding Question 10 due to a low response rate. The ICC was 0.824 overall and 0.851 after excluding Question 10. The correlation with the ODI was 0.684, and the correlation coefficients with each domain of the JOABPEQ ranged from -0.590 to -0.413, indicating moderate correlation. However, LROM and the LSDI-J were not correlated (r=-0.055, P=0.734). Conclusions: The LSDI-J may not be suitable in Japan because there was no correlation with LROM, the most important factor for external validity. It may be necessary to investigate why the LSDI-J did not apply to the Japanese population in terms of lower limb function. Alternatively, a unique method may be needed to assess lumbar stiffness disability that is more suitable for actual clinical practice in Japan.

Evaluation of lumbar stiffness after long-level fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis via a Chinese version of the lumbar stiffness disability index.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Long-level spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS)seeks to eliminate spinal motion in an attempt to alleviate pain, improve deformity, and reduce disability. However, this surgery considerably impairs the performance of activities of daily living (ADL) due to the resulting stiffness. The lumbar stiffness disability index (LSDI) is a validated measure of the effect of lumbar stiffness on functional activity, but this index might not be fully applicable to the elderly Chinese population given several specific lifestyle characteristics. PURPOSE: To evaluate lumbar stiffness in patients with DLS after long-level fusion by Chinese-LSDI (C-LSDI). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 129 DLS patients who underwent long-level (≧4 levels) fusion surgery with at least one-year follow-up from June 2009 to September 2017 were retrospectively included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The C-LSDI was designed by modifying LSDI and Korean-LSDI (K-LSDI) based on elderly Chinese lifestyles and the internal consistency and retest repeatability of the patient-reported outcome questionnaire in the measurement of the impact of lumbar stiffness on functional abilities was assessed. METHODS: The radiographic parameters including Cobb angle, apical vertebral translation (AVT), coronal vertical axis (CVA), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), thoracic kyphosis (TK), thoracolumbar kyphosis (TLK), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), and PI-LL, and clinical symptoms including visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and low extremity pain; Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association-29 (JOA-29), Scoliosis Research Society⁃22 (SRS-22), 36⁃Item short form survey (SF-36), physical component scores (PCS) and mental component scores (MCS) were measured preoperatively and at the last follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with LSDI and K-LSDI, the C-LSDI demonstrated higher internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.902) and retest reliability (Internal consistency coefficients, ICC=0.904) in the elderly Chinese population. All patients showed increased lumbar stiffness and significant improvement in pain and deformity postoperatively. Regarding items, such as performing personal hygiene after toileting and getting out of a car, people reported more inconvenience with increasingly fixed levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the C-LSDI questionnaire was a reliable and valid instrument for assessing functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness among elderly Chinese patients with DLS after long-level fusion. Although the effects of stiffness did trend toward greater impacts among patients who underwent longer fusions, most patients were satisfied with trade-offs of function and pain relief in exchange for perceived increases in lumbar stiffness.

Sexual Dysfunction Secondary to Lumbar Stiffness in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients Before and After Long-Segment Spinal Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Sexual function is an important factor contributing to quality of life. Adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients may have sexual limitations due to lumbar spinal stiffness that may be affected by long-segment fusion. METHODS: This study utilized a multicenter, prospectively defined, consecutive cohort of ASD patients. The primary outcome in this study was the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI) question 10: "Choose the statement that best describes the effect of low back stiffness on your ability to engage in sexual intercourse". RESULTS: In total, 368 patients were included in this study, including 76 men and 292 women, of which 80.7% (n = 293) underwent 9 or more level fusion and 74.4% (n = 270) had pelvic fixation. Baseline LSDI sexual function scores averaged 1.7 (SD 1.3), which improved to 1.3 (SD 1.2) at 2-year follow-up (P = 0.0008). After adjusting for confounding factors, worse LSDI sexual function score was strongly associated with worse Oswestry Disability Index, Scoliosis Research Society-22r total, and SF-36 Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scores at both baseline and 2-year follow-up (p<0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of poorer baseline sexual function included older age, increased SVA, and increased back pain (p<0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of improvement in sexual function at 2-year follow-up included sagittal vertical axis improvement (P = 0.0032) and decreased postoperative back pain (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that sexual dysfunction scores due to lumbar stiffness significantly improved after surgery for ASD. Additionally, lumbar stiffness-related sexual dysfunction is strongly related to overall outcome measured by Oswestry Disability Index and Scoliosis Research Society-22r total score, highlighting the importance of sexual health on overall outcome in ASD patients.

Is postural control during unstable sitting a proxy measure for determinants associated with lumbar stability?

The aim of this study was to test whether determinants associated with lumbar stability can predict performance during unstable sitting (trunk postural control - TPC). If confirmed, unstable sitting could be viewed as a proxy measure for these determinants. Wobbling chair motion was measured in 58 subjects with an inertial sensor, and six outcomes were computed (mean frequency and velocity, frequency dispersion, two variables from the sway density analysis and Lyapunov exponent - short interval) to represent TPC performance. Subjects also performed five other trunk neuromuscular tests to quantify the thickness of back and abdominal muscles and connective tissues, lumbar proprioception, lumbar stiffness, feedforward and feedback control mechanisms, and trunk/muscle coordination. Four to five predictors explained between 36 and 47% of TPC outcomes variance, as determined with multivariate analyses. These predictors were mainly related to (1) angular kinematic parameters of the pelvis or lumbar spine following rapid arm movement, (2) lumbar intrinsic stiffness, (3) thickness of perimuscular connective tissues surrounding specific abdominal muscles, (4) activation onsets of specific trunk muscles (IO/TrA and iliocostalis lumborum) before rapid arm movement, and (5) percent thickness change of internal oblique (IO) and transversus abdominis (TrA) muscles. Lumbar proprioception and reflex responses were not predictive, possibly due to the lack of appropriate measurements. These findings support the use of TPC in unstable sitting as a proxy measure for determinants associated with lumbar stability. This might be useful in research and clinical settings, considering time and equipment constraints associated with measuring these determinants individually.

Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness.

BACKGROUND: Objectively measured reduction in lumbar posterior-to-anterior (PA) stiffness is associated with pain relief in some, but not all persons with low back pain. Unfortunately, these measurements can be time consuming to perform. In comparison, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is intended to measure spinal instability and the Lumbar Spine Disability Index (LSDI) is created for self-reporting functional disability due to increased spinal stiffness. Given the above, the aim of this study is to compare measures of the LSIQ and LSDI with objective measures of lumbar PA stiffness as measured by a mechanical device, Vertetrack (VT), in patients with persistent non-specific low back pain (nsLBP). METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with nsLBP completed the LSIQ and LSDI at baseline and after two weeks. On these same occasions, PA spinal stiffness was measured using the VT. Between measurements, patients received four sessions of spinal manipulation. The resulting data was analyzed to determine the correlation between the self-report and objective measures of stiffness at both time points. Further, the patients were categorized into responders and non-responders based on pre-established cut points depending on values from the VT and compared those to self-report measures in order to determine whether the LSIQ and the LSDI were sensitive to change. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants completed the study. Measures from the LSIQ and LSDI correlated poorly with objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness at baseline and also with the change scores. The change in objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness following spinal manipulation did not differ between those who improved, and those who did not improve according to the pre-specified cut-points. Finally, a reduction in lumbar PA stiffness following intervention was not associated with improvement in LSIQ and LSDI outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current data indicate that the LSIQ and LSDI questionnaires do not correlate with measures obtained objectively by VT. Our results suggest that these objective and self- reported measures represent different domains and as such, cannot stand in place of one another.

The effect of extensible and non-extensible lumbar belts on trunk muscle activity and lumbar stiffness in subjects with and without low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar belts have been shown to increase lumbar stiffness, but it is unclear if this is associated with trunk muscle co-contraction, which would increase the compression on the spine. It has been hypothesized that lumbar belts increase lumbar stiffness by increasing intra-abdominal pressure, which would increase spinal stability without increasing the compressive load on the spine. METHODS: Trunk muscle activity and lumbar stiffness and damping were measured in healthy and low-back pain subjects during three conditions: no lumbar belt; wearing an extensible lumbar belt; wearing a non-extensible lumbar belt. Muscle activity was measured while subjects performed controlled forward and backward 20° trunk sways. Lumbar stiffness and damping were measured by applying random continuous perturbation to the chest. FINDINGS: External oblique activity was decreased when wearing either lumbar belt during all phases of movement, while rectus abdominis and iliocostalis activity were decreased during the phase of movement where the muscles were maximally active while wearing either belt. Trunk stiffness was greatly increased by wearing either belt. There were no consistent differences in either lumbar stiffness or muscle activity between the two belts. Wearing a lumbar belt had little to no effect on damping. There were no group differences in any of the measures between healthy and low-back pain populations. INTERPRETATION: The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that lumbar belts can increase spinal stability by increasing intra-abdominal pressure, without any increase in the compressive load on the spine. The findings can also be generalized, for the first time, to subjects with low-back pain.

Modern cup alignment techniques in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: A systematic review was conducted to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of the alternative surgical techniques that consider the dynamic aspect of the acetabular orientation when aligning a cup (pelvic tilt-, lumbo-pelvic kinematics-, and spine-hip relationship-adjusted cup alignment techniques). METHOD: Eight eligible articles reported the outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed with alternative techniques. Clinical and radiological data were extracted. One study had a control group of patients who underwent conventional THAs (level III) while the seven other studies were level IV. Computer navigation system (CAS), Optimized Positioning System (OPS™), and manual instrumentation were used to align components in four, two, and two studies, respectively. A meta-analysis was not carried out because there was a lack of homogeneity between included articles regarding the method to position the cup and the nature of the reported data. RESULTS: THA performed with alternative techniques had an early dislocation rate ranging from 0 to 1.9%, no unexpected catastrophic failure, and acceptable radiographic cup orientations. One study compared kinematically and mechanically aligned THAs and found no dislocation in either groups, similar patient reported outcome measures (43 Oxford-12 Score for both groups), and similar proportions of cup in the Lewinnek zone (respectively 65% and 70%). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Alternative methods accounting for the functional acetabular orientation seem to be clinically safe and effective in the early-term, and generate acceptable cup orientation on radiographs. Their values compare to those of more conventional techniques for cup implantation remain to be determined. We developed a classification of the multiple methods for aligning an acetabular component. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review of level III and IV studies.

Upper-thoracic versus lower-thoracic upper instrumented vertebra in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing fusion to the pelvis: surgical decision-making and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Optimal patient selection for upper-thoracic (UT) versus lower-thoracic (LT) fusion during adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction is challenging. Radiographic and clinical outcomes following UT versus LT fusion remain incompletely understood. The purposes of this study were: 1) to evaluate demographic, radiographic, and surgical characteristics associated with choice of UT versus LT fusion endpoint; and 2) to evaluate differences in radiographic, clinical, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes following UT versus LT fusion for ASD. METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected multicenter ASD database was performed. Patients with ASD who underwent fusion from the sacrum/ilium to the LT (T9-L1) or UT (T1-6) spine were compared for demographic, radiographic, and surgical characteristics. Outcomes including proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), reoperation, rod fracture, pseudarthrosis, overall complications, 2-year change in alignment parameters, and 2-year HRQOL metrics (Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index, Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index) were compared after controlling for confounding factors via multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred three patients (169 LT, 134 UT) were evaluated. Independent predictors of UT fusion included greater thoracic kyphosis (odds ratio [OR] 0.97 per degree, p = 0.0098), greater coronal Cobb angle (OR 1.06 per degree, p < 0.0001), and performance of a 3-column osteotomy (3-CO; OR 2.39, p = 0.0351). While associated with longer operative times (ratio 1.13, p < 0.0001) and greater estimated blood loss (ratio 1.31, p = 0.0018), UT fusions resulted in greater sagittal vertical axis improvement (-59.5 vs -41.0 mm, p = 0.0035) and lower PJK rates (OR 0.49, p = 0.0457). No significant differences in postoperative HRQOL measures, reoperation, or overall complication rates were detected between groups (all p > 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Greater deformity and need for 3-CO increased the likelihood of UT fusion. Despite longer operative times and greater blood loss, UT fusions resulted in better sagittal correction and lower 2-year PJK rates following surgery for ASD. While continued surveillance is necessary, this information may inform patient counseling and surgical decision-making.

Optimum pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis value after operation for patients with adult degenerative scoliosis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Schwab classification for adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) concluded that health-related quality of life was closely related to curve type and three sagittal modifiers. It was suggested that pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis value (PI-LL) should be corrected within -10°~+10°. However, recent studies also indicated that ideal clinical outcomes could also be achieved in patients without the ideal PI-LL mentioned above. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the relation between the clinical outcomes and the PI-LL of Chinese patients with ADS who received long posterior internal fixation and fusion. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center retrospective comparative study of patients treated by long posterior internal fixation and fusion in our hospital between 2010 and 2014. PATIENT SAMPLE: Inclusion criteria were age >45 years at the time of surgery, Cobb angle of lumbar curves ≥10°, long posterior internal fixation and fusion ≥least 3 motion segments, follow-up ≥2 years, complete preoperative and postoperative radiographic data, and functional evaluation results. Exclusion criteria were history of previous lumbar spine surgery, other kinds of scoliosis, history of severe spinal trauma, spinal tumor, ankylosing spondylitis, and spinal tuberculosis. Seventy-four patients were enrolled in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative parameters included intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, number of fusion levels, and decompression. The radiological measurements included Cobb angle of the curves and PI-LL. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale, and Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI). In addition, the complications of surgery were also collected. One-way analysis of variance, Student t test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Pearson chi-square test, and curve estimation were calculated for variables. METHODS: All the patients were divided into Group 1 (long instrumentation and fusion to L5) and Group 2 (long instrumentation and fusion to S1). Operative parameters, radiological measurements, clinical outcomes, and complications of surgery were compared between two groups to confirm whether distal fusion level could influence therapeutic effect. Then patients were divided into PI-LL<10° (Group A), 10°≤PI-LL≤20° (Group B), PI-LL>20° (Group C). Operative parameters, radiological measurements, clinical outcomes, and complications of surgery were compared between each of the two groups. Curve estimation was performed to evaluate the relationship between postoperative PI-LL and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: No difference was found between Group 1 and Group 2 in all postoperative parameters (p>.05). There were significant differences in final ODI (p<.001) and final LSDI (p<.001) among Group A, Group B, and Group C. Cubic curve model fitted the relationship between PI-LL and final ODI better than other models (R2=0.379, p<.001). Cubic curve model fitted the relationship between PI-LL and final LSDI better than other models (R2=0.691, p<.001). There was a significant difference in proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) among groups (p=.038). No significant difference was found in other parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal PI-LL value may be achieved between 10° and 20° in Chinese patients with ADS after long posterior instrumentation and fusion surgery with excellent clinical outcomes and a lower PJK occurrence.