Selecting caudal fusion levels: 2 year functional and stiffness outcomes with matched pairs analysis in multilevel fusion to L5 versus S1

Alan H. Daniels, Heiko Koller, Shannon L. Hiratzka, Michael Mayer, Oliver Meier, Alec Gabriel Contag, Adam E M Eltorai, Jayme Hiratzka, D. Kojo Hamilton, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Justin S. Smith, Shay Bess, Eric Otto Klineberg, Christopher P. Ames, Virginie Lafage, Breton Line, Frank J. Schwab, Robert A. Hart, International Spine Study Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Controversy persists as to whether to end multilevel thoracolumbar fusions caudally at L5 or S1. Some argue that stopping at L5 may preserve greater function, but there are few data comparing functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness in patients with fusion to L5 versus S1. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients undergoing multilevel thoracolumbar fusions with an L5 caudal endpoint have a better lumbosacral function than patients with an S1 caudal endpoint. Methods: Patients undergoing successful thoracolumbar fusion of 5 or more levels to L5 or S1, with solid fusion at 2 year follow-up, were examined from a single European center in addition to a multi-center North American database of 237 patients. In total, 40 patients with a distal stopping point of L5 were matched with a subset of 40 patients with a distal endpoint of S1 ± pelvic fixation. The L5 and S1 groups were matched for the final Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA C7-S1), number of fusion levels, and age. Impacts of lumbar stiffness on function as measured by the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI) were compared using the conditional logistic regression. Results: After matching, there was no significant difference between the S1 and L5 groups for the final ODI (29.22 ± 21.6 for S1 versus 29.21 ± 21.7 for L5; p = 0.98), SVA (29.5 ± 40.3 mm for S1 versus 33.7 ± 37.1 mm for L5; p = 0.97), mean age (61.6 ± 11.0 years for S1 versus 58.3 ± 12.6 years for L5; p = 0.23), and number of fusion levels (9.7 ± 3.3 levels for S1 versus 9.0 ± 3 levels for L5; p = 0.34). The final 2-year postoperative LSDI scores were not significantly different between the S1 group (28.08 ± 21.47) and L5 group (29.21 ± 21.66) (hazard ratio 0.99, 95 % CI 0.97–1.03, p = 0.81). Conclusion: The analysis of patients with multilevel thoracolumbar fusions demonstrated that after minimum 2 year follow-up, self-reported functional impacts of lumbar stiffness were not significantly different between the patients with distal endpoints of L5 versus S1. The choice of distal fusion level of L5 does not appear to retain sufficient spinal flexibility to substantially affect postoperative function. Level of evidence: Level III.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-7
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Spine Journal
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Sep 27 2016

Fingerprint

Matched-Pair Analysis
Research Design
Logistic Models
Databases

Keywords

  • Adult spinal deformity
  • Adverse outcomes
  • Collateral outcomes
  • LSDI
  • Lumbar spine
  • Spine fusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Selecting caudal fusion levels : 2 year functional and stiffness outcomes with matched pairs analysis in multilevel fusion to L5 versus S1. / Daniels, Alan H.; Koller, Heiko; Hiratzka, Shannon L.; Mayer, Michael; Meier, Oliver; Contag, Alec Gabriel; Eltorai, Adam E M; Hiratzka, Jayme; Kojo Hamilton, D.; Shaffrey, Christopher I.; Smith, Justin S.; Bess, Shay; Klineberg, Eric Otto; Ames, Christopher P.; Lafage, Virginie; Line, Breton; Schwab, Frank J.; Hart, Robert A.; Group, International Spine Study.

In: European Spine Journal, 27.09.2016, p. 1-7.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Daniels, AH, Koller, H, Hiratzka, SL, Mayer, M, Meier, O, Contag, AG, Eltorai, AEM, Hiratzka, J, Kojo Hamilton, D, Shaffrey, CI, Smith, JS, Bess, S, Klineberg, EO, Ames, CP, Lafage, V, Line, B, Schwab, FJ, Hart, RA & Group, ISS 2016, 'Selecting caudal fusion levels: 2 year functional and stiffness outcomes with matched pairs analysis in multilevel fusion to L5 versus S1', European Spine Journal, pp. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4790-z
Daniels, Alan H. ; Koller, Heiko ; Hiratzka, Shannon L. ; Mayer, Michael ; Meier, Oliver ; Contag, Alec Gabriel ; Eltorai, Adam E M ; Hiratzka, Jayme ; Kojo Hamilton, D. ; Shaffrey, Christopher I. ; Smith, Justin S. ; Bess, Shay ; Klineberg, Eric Otto ; Ames, Christopher P. ; Lafage, Virginie ; Line, Breton ; Schwab, Frank J. ; Hart, Robert A. ; Group, International Spine Study. / Selecting caudal fusion levels : 2 year functional and stiffness outcomes with matched pairs analysis in multilevel fusion to L5 versus S1. In: European Spine Journal. 2016 ; pp. 1-7.
@article{79b89ccff10e4aa08ff34c9b1e4797bd,
title = "Selecting caudal fusion levels: 2 year functional and stiffness outcomes with matched pairs analysis in multilevel fusion to L5 versus S1",
abstract = "Purpose: Controversy persists as to whether to end multilevel thoracolumbar fusions caudally at L5 or S1. Some argue that stopping at L5 may preserve greater function, but there are few data comparing functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness in patients with fusion to L5 versus S1. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients undergoing multilevel thoracolumbar fusions with an L5 caudal endpoint have a better lumbosacral function than patients with an S1 caudal endpoint. Methods: Patients undergoing successful thoracolumbar fusion of 5 or more levels to L5 or S1, with solid fusion at 2 year follow-up, were examined from a single European center in addition to a multi-center North American database of 237 patients. In total, 40 patients with a distal stopping point of L5 were matched with a subset of 40 patients with a distal endpoint of S1 ± pelvic fixation. The L5 and S1 groups were matched for the final Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA C7-S1), number of fusion levels, and age. Impacts of lumbar stiffness on function as measured by the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI) were compared using the conditional logistic regression. Results: After matching, there was no significant difference between the S1 and L5 groups for the final ODI (29.22 ± 21.6 for S1 versus 29.21 ± 21.7 for L5; p = 0.98), SVA (29.5 ± 40.3 mm for S1 versus 33.7 ± 37.1 mm for L5; p = 0.97), mean age (61.6 ± 11.0 years for S1 versus 58.3 ± 12.6 years for L5; p = 0.23), and number of fusion levels (9.7 ± 3.3 levels for S1 versus 9.0 ± 3 levels for L5; p = 0.34). The final 2-year postoperative LSDI scores were not significantly different between the S1 group (28.08 ± 21.47) and L5 group (29.21 ± 21.66) (hazard ratio 0.99, 95 {\%} CI 0.97–1.03, p = 0.81). Conclusion: The analysis of patients with multilevel thoracolumbar fusions demonstrated that after minimum 2 year follow-up, self-reported functional impacts of lumbar stiffness were not significantly different between the patients with distal endpoints of L5 versus S1. The choice of distal fusion level of L5 does not appear to retain sufficient spinal flexibility to substantially affect postoperative function. Level of evidence: Level III.",
keywords = "Adult spinal deformity, Adverse outcomes, Collateral outcomes, LSDI, Lumbar spine, Spine fusion",
author = "Daniels, {Alan H.} and Heiko Koller and Hiratzka, {Shannon L.} and Michael Mayer and Oliver Meier and Contag, {Alec Gabriel} and Eltorai, {Adam E M} and Jayme Hiratzka and {Kojo Hamilton}, D. and Shaffrey, {Christopher I.} and Smith, {Justin S.} and Shay Bess and Klineberg, {Eric Otto} and Ames, {Christopher P.} and Virginie Lafage and Breton Line and Schwab, {Frank J.} and Hart, {Robert A.} and Group, {International Spine Study}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1007/s00586-016-4790-z",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--7",
journal = "European Spine Journal",
issn = "0940-6719",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Selecting caudal fusion levels

T2 - 2 year functional and stiffness outcomes with matched pairs analysis in multilevel fusion to L5 versus S1

AU - Daniels, Alan H.

AU - Koller, Heiko

AU - Hiratzka, Shannon L.

AU - Mayer, Michael

AU - Meier, Oliver

AU - Contag, Alec Gabriel

AU - Eltorai, Adam E M

AU - Hiratzka, Jayme

AU - Kojo Hamilton, D.

AU - Shaffrey, Christopher I.

AU - Smith, Justin S.

AU - Bess, Shay

AU - Klineberg, Eric Otto

AU - Ames, Christopher P.

AU - Lafage, Virginie

AU - Line, Breton

AU - Schwab, Frank J.

AU - Hart, Robert A.

AU - Group, International Spine Study

PY - 2016/9/27

Y1 - 2016/9/27

N2 - Purpose: Controversy persists as to whether to end multilevel thoracolumbar fusions caudally at L5 or S1. Some argue that stopping at L5 may preserve greater function, but there are few data comparing functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness in patients with fusion to L5 versus S1. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients undergoing multilevel thoracolumbar fusions with an L5 caudal endpoint have a better lumbosacral function than patients with an S1 caudal endpoint. Methods: Patients undergoing successful thoracolumbar fusion of 5 or more levels to L5 or S1, with solid fusion at 2 year follow-up, were examined from a single European center in addition to a multi-center North American database of 237 patients. In total, 40 patients with a distal stopping point of L5 were matched with a subset of 40 patients with a distal endpoint of S1 ± pelvic fixation. The L5 and S1 groups were matched for the final Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA C7-S1), number of fusion levels, and age. Impacts of lumbar stiffness on function as measured by the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI) were compared using the conditional logistic regression. Results: After matching, there was no significant difference between the S1 and L5 groups for the final ODI (29.22 ± 21.6 for S1 versus 29.21 ± 21.7 for L5; p = 0.98), SVA (29.5 ± 40.3 mm for S1 versus 33.7 ± 37.1 mm for L5; p = 0.97), mean age (61.6 ± 11.0 years for S1 versus 58.3 ± 12.6 years for L5; p = 0.23), and number of fusion levels (9.7 ± 3.3 levels for S1 versus 9.0 ± 3 levels for L5; p = 0.34). The final 2-year postoperative LSDI scores were not significantly different between the S1 group (28.08 ± 21.47) and L5 group (29.21 ± 21.66) (hazard ratio 0.99, 95 % CI 0.97–1.03, p = 0.81). Conclusion: The analysis of patients with multilevel thoracolumbar fusions demonstrated that after minimum 2 year follow-up, self-reported functional impacts of lumbar stiffness were not significantly different between the patients with distal endpoints of L5 versus S1. The choice of distal fusion level of L5 does not appear to retain sufficient spinal flexibility to substantially affect postoperative function. Level of evidence: Level III.

AB - Purpose: Controversy persists as to whether to end multilevel thoracolumbar fusions caudally at L5 or S1. Some argue that stopping at L5 may preserve greater function, but there are few data comparing functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness in patients with fusion to L5 versus S1. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients undergoing multilevel thoracolumbar fusions with an L5 caudal endpoint have a better lumbosacral function than patients with an S1 caudal endpoint. Methods: Patients undergoing successful thoracolumbar fusion of 5 or more levels to L5 or S1, with solid fusion at 2 year follow-up, were examined from a single European center in addition to a multi-center North American database of 237 patients. In total, 40 patients with a distal stopping point of L5 were matched with a subset of 40 patients with a distal endpoint of S1 ± pelvic fixation. The L5 and S1 groups were matched for the final Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA C7-S1), number of fusion levels, and age. Impacts of lumbar stiffness on function as measured by the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI) were compared using the conditional logistic regression. Results: After matching, there was no significant difference between the S1 and L5 groups for the final ODI (29.22 ± 21.6 for S1 versus 29.21 ± 21.7 for L5; p = 0.98), SVA (29.5 ± 40.3 mm for S1 versus 33.7 ± 37.1 mm for L5; p = 0.97), mean age (61.6 ± 11.0 years for S1 versus 58.3 ± 12.6 years for L5; p = 0.23), and number of fusion levels (9.7 ± 3.3 levels for S1 versus 9.0 ± 3 levels for L5; p = 0.34). The final 2-year postoperative LSDI scores were not significantly different between the S1 group (28.08 ± 21.47) and L5 group (29.21 ± 21.66) (hazard ratio 0.99, 95 % CI 0.97–1.03, p = 0.81). Conclusion: The analysis of patients with multilevel thoracolumbar fusions demonstrated that after minimum 2 year follow-up, self-reported functional impacts of lumbar stiffness were not significantly different between the patients with distal endpoints of L5 versus S1. The choice of distal fusion level of L5 does not appear to retain sufficient spinal flexibility to substantially affect postoperative function. Level of evidence: Level III.

KW - Adult spinal deformity

KW - Adverse outcomes

KW - Collateral outcomes

KW - LSDI

KW - Lumbar spine

KW - Spine fusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988712918&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988712918&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00586-016-4790-z

DO - 10.1007/s00586-016-4790-z

M3 - Article

C2 - 27679430

AN - SCOPUS:84988712918

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - European Spine Journal

JF - European Spine Journal

SN - 0940-6719

ER -