Search

Background: Postoperative sacroiliac joint pain (SIJP) is a common manifestation of failed back surgery syndrome after a posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). However, there is currently no consensus on the risk factors for SIJP after PLIF., Objectives: We explored the effects of abdominal obesity and sagittal imbalance on SIJP after PLIF., Study Design: This is a prospective observational cohort study., Setting: This study occurred at the Department of Spinal Surgery at a hospital affiliated with a medical university., Methods: A total of 401 patients who underwent PLIF from June 2018 to June 2021 were enrolled in this study. 36 patients experienced postoperative SIJP. In contrast, a matched group comprised 72 non-SIJP patients. We used 1:2 propensity score matching to compare obesity features and sagittal spine parameters in the 2 groups. Inflammatory cytokines and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were measured in the SIJP group., Results: A total of 36 patients (8.98%) experienced SIJP during the follow-up. Compared with the non-SIJP group, patients with postoperative SIJP had a higher body mass index (BMI), greater abdominal obesity, a higher incidence of pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis greater than 10°, and a higher incidence of a sagittal vertical axis greater than 5 cm (P < 0.05). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the area under the curve for waist circumference was greater than that for BMI (0.762 vs. 0.650, P = 0.049). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the risk factors for SIJP were abdominal obesity, a pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis of greater than 10°, and a sagittal vertical axis greater than 5 cm (P < 0.05). In patients with SIJP, interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor-α, and VAS scores were higher in the abdominal obesity group than in the non-abdominal obesity group (P < 0.05)., Limitations: There was no uniform diagnosis of SIJP, so the incidence rate of SIJP might not be accurate., Conclusions: The significant predictors of SIJP were abdominal obesity and sagittal imbalance. Patients with abdominal obesity showed higher levels of inflammatory markers and pain intensity. More attention should be paid to body shape and the angle of correction of lumbar lordosis before lumbar surgery.

Background: Obesity had been previously considered to be a protective factor against osteoporosis or fractures; however, recent research indicates that obesity, especially abdominal obesity, may increase the risk of some types of fractures., Objective: We explored the effects of abdominal obesity on subsequent vertebral fracture (SVF) after percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA)., Study Design: A prospective observational cohort study., Setting: Department of Spinal Surgery of a hospital affiliated with a medical university., Methods: A total of 390 women and 237 men aged > 50 years suffering from osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) were included. Weight, height, bone mineral density (BMD), abdominal circumference, and other basic information were measured at baseline and 1-year follow-up visit., Results: During follow-up, 80 (33.7%) men and 143 (36.7%) women incurred SVF. Greater waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) increased the risk of SVF in men (WC: HR 1.83, P = 0.016; WHR: HR 1.63, P = 0.045) and women (WC: HR 2.75, P = 0.001; WHR: HR 2.63, P = 0.001) after adjustment for BMD and other potential confounders. Compared with normal BMI, being overweight was associated with lower SVF risk (women: HR 0.55, P = 0.044; men: HR 0.46, P = 0.046), and obesity was associated with greater SVF risk (women: HR 4.53, P < 0.001; men: HR 3.77, P < 0.001) in both genders. We observed a nonlinear relationship between BMI and SVF with a U-shaped curve; after adjusting BMD, this became a reverse J-curve., Limitations: There was no further statistical analysis of the relationship between abdominal obesity and other fracture sites. Asymptomatic SVF may underestimate the impact of abdominal obesity on the occurrence of SVF., Conclusions: Abdominal obesity was significantly associated with a higher risk of SVF after PVA. Management of body type after PVA may be an effective prevention strategy against SVF.