The Role of L1PA in Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Single-level Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the L1 pelvic angle (L1PA) can be used to predict quality of life outcomes for adults one year after L4-L5 fusion to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: L1PA is beneficial in the evaluation of preoperative and postoperative quality of life outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for spinal deformity. No studies have examined its utility in surgical patients with degenerative spinal disease. METHODS: Patients undergoing L4-L5 posterolateral decompression and fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were grouped by preoperative and postoperative L1PA, and further stratified by cut offs of >7.2° and <7.2° based on previous literature. We also stratified patients by presence of an ideal calculated L1PA, defined as (0.5×Pelvic incidence) -21 +/-5°, as proposed by prior literature. Preoperative, one-year postoperative and Δ (postoperative minus preoperative) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic measurements were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were identified with preoperative L1PAs <7.2° and 132 with L1PAs >7.2°. Eighteen patients were identified with postoperative L1PAs <7.2° and 138 with L1PAs>7.2°. Sixty-five and fifty-seven patients were identified as having ideal calculated preoperative and postoperative L1PAs, respectively. When using absolute cutoffs, L1PA correlated with pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL). When using calculated L1PAs, L1PA correlated with lumbar lordosis, PI-LL, pelvic tilt and sacral slope. With respect to PROMs, no statistically significant differences existed between cohorts both preoperatively and at one-year postoperatively on either univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: L1PA may be a helpful radiographic consideration that translates to clinically relevant outcomes in spinal deformity. However, it does not appear as predictive of patient outcomes after single-level fusion for patients with L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Further studies are warranted to investigate the role of L1PA in degenerative spine patients.

Utility of Seated Lateral Radiographs in the Diagnosis and Classification of Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: Our goal was to determine which radiographic images are most essential for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) classification and instability detection. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The heterogeneity in DS requires multiple imaging views to evaluate vertebral translation, disc space, slip angle, and instability. However, there are several restrictions on frequently used imaging perspectives such as flexion-extension and upright radiography. METHODS: We assessed baseline neutral upright, standing flexion, seated lateral radiographs, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients identified with spondylolisthesis from January 2021 to May 2022 by a single spine surgeon. DS was classified by Meyerding and Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis classifications. A difference of >10° or >8% between views, respectively, was used to characterize angular and translational instability. Analysis of variance and paired chi-square tests were utilized to compare modalities. RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included. Seated lateral and standing flexion radiographs showed the greatest slip percentage (16.0% and 16.7%), while MRI revealed the lowest (12.2%, p <0.001). Standing flexion and lateral radiographs when seated produced more kyphosis (4.66° and 4.97°, respectively) than neutral upright and MRI (7.19° and 7.20°, p <0.001). Seated lateral performed similarly to standing flexion in detecting all measurement parameters and categorizing DS (all p >0.05). Translational instability was shown to be more prevalent when associated with seated lateral or standing flexion than when combined with neutral upright (31.5% vs. 20.2%, p =0.041; and 28.1% vs. 14.6%, p =0.014, respectively). There were no differences between seated lateral or standing flexion in the detection of instability (all p >0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Seated lateral radiographs are appropriate alternatives for standing flexion radiographs. Films taken when standing up straight do not offer any more information for DS detection. Rather than standing flexion-extension radiographs, instability can be detected using an MRI, which is often performed preoperatively, paired with a single seated lateral radiograph.