Search

There are few studies of the radio-clinical outcomes of cement-augmented cannulated pedicle screw (CPS) fixation in osteoporotic patients.To compare the radiological and clinical outcomes between groups receiving cement-augmented CPS and solid pedicle screws (SPS) in lumbar fusion surgery.Retrospective comparative study PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 187 patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis from 2014 to 2019.Radiological evaluation included screw failure, cage failure, rod breakage, and fusion grade at postoperative 6 months and 1 year. Pre- and postoperative visual analog scales for back pain (VAS-BP), leg pain (VAS-LP), Korean Oswestry disability index (K-ODI), and postoperative complications were also compared.Outcomes of patients with high risk factors for implant failure [old age, osteoporosis, autoimmune disease or chronic kidney disease (CKD)] who underwent open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with cement-augmented CPS fixation (Group C, n=55) or SPS fixation (Group S, n=132) were compared.324 pedicle screws in Group C and 775 pedicle screws in Group S were analyzed. Group C had a significantly higher average age and lower T-score, and included more patients with autoimmune disease and CKD than group S (all p.05). Clear zones, screw migration and loss of correction were significantly less frequent in Group C (all p.05). Thirteen screw breakages were observed; they were only in Group C (4.0%) and all were in the proximal of the two holes. Interbody and posterolateral fusion rates were not significantly different. At last follow-up, all clinical parameters including VAS-BP, VAS-LP, and K-ODI scores had improved significantly in both groups. Postoperative complications were not significantly different in the two groups.In lumbar fusion surgery, using cement-augmented CPS in high-risk groups for implant failure could be a useful technical option for reducing acute radiological complications and obtaining clinical results comparable to those obtained using SPS in patients with low risk of implant failure.Level 4.

To elucidate whether specific spinopelvic morphologies affect the subsequent spinal sagittal alignments and determine the alignment patterns. Whole-spine standing radiographs of 244 patients were analyzed. Sagittal alignment parameters were compared according to the three types of pelvic version: anteverted pelvis (AP), neutral pelvis, and retroverted pelvis (RP), grouped per the amount of pelvic tilt (PT) and the ratio of sacral slope to pelvic incidence (PI). Incidence angles of inflection points (IAIPs) were defined as the angle between a line from the center of the femoral heads through the midpoint of the sacral superior endplate and a line perpendicular to each L1, T1 superior endplate, C2 inferior endplate, and the C1 ring, respectively. C1 incidence equaled to the geometrical sum from the pelvis to the C1 vertebra; it also equaled the sum of the C1 slope and PT (p