Study DesignProspective observational study.PurposeTo introduce the techniques and present the surgical outcomes of mini-open anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at the most caudal segments of the spine combined with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for the correction of adult spinal deformityOverview of LiteratureAlthough LLIF is increasingly used to correct adult spinal deformity, the correction of sagittal plane deformity with LLIF alone is reportedly suboptimal.MethodsThirty-two consecutive patients with adult spinal deformity underwent LLIF combined with mini-open ALIF at the L5–S1 or L4–S1 levels followed by 2-stage posterior fixation. ALIF was performed for a mean 1.3 levels and LLIF for a mean 2.7 levels. Then, percutaneous fixation was performed in 11 patients (percutaneous group), open correction with facetectomy with or without laminectomy in 16 (open group), and additional pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) in 5 (PSO group). Spinopelvic parameters were compared preoperatively and postoperatively. Hospitalization data and clinical outcomes were recorded.ResultsNo major medical complications developed, and clinical outcomes improved postoperatively in all groups. The mean postoperative segmental lordosis was greater after ALIF (17.5°±5.5°) than after LLIF (8.1°±5.3°, p <0.001). Four patients (12.5%) had lumbar lordosis with a pelvic incidence of ±9° preoperatively, whereas this outcome was achieved postoperatively in 30 patients (93.8%). The total increase in lumbar lordosis was 14.7° in the percutaneous group, 35.3° in the open group, and 57.0° in the PSO group. The ranges of potential lumbar lordosis increase were estimated as 4°–25°, 23°–42°, and 45°–65°, respectively.ConclusionsMini-open ALIF combined with LLIF followed by posterior fixation may be a feasible technique for achieving optimal sagittal balance and reducing the necessity of more extensive surgery.

The main goal of total disc replacement (TDR) is to preserve motion. Despite reports of good clinical outcomes, various degrees of heterotopic ossification after TDR have been reported. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence and its clinical relevance of heterotopic ossification. We evaluated 65 consecutive patients (82 segments) with mean follow-up duration of 45 months (range, 12-88 months). Two kinds of prosthesis, ProDisc® for 75 segments (91.5%) and CHARITE™ for seven segments (8.5%), were used. Patients with heterotopic ossification were compared with those without heterotopic ossification with regard to segmental flexion-extension ROM, VAS and ODI. We analysed the occurrence site by nine zones. Heterotopic ossification was detected in 25 out of 82 segments (30.5%) at a mean follow-up of 17 months. According to McAfee's classification, there was Class-I heterotopic ossification in eight segments (9.8%), Class-II in 12 segments (14.6%), and Class-III in five segments (6.1%). There was no Class-IV heterotopic ossification. There were no significant differences in the segmental ROM, VAS and ODI between the patients with Class-I or Class-II heterotopic ossification and those without heterotopic ossification The segmental ROM in the patients with Class-III heterotopic ossification was significantly decreased compared with the patients without heterotopic ossification (p = 0.018). But VAS and ODI were not significantly different compared with those of patients with no heterotopic ossification. Most heterotopic ossification (82.5%) was detected in the anterior and posterior aspects. In conclusion, most of the heterotopic ossification (Classes I and II) did not affect segmental ROM and clinical outcomes such as pain or function. In Class-III heterotopic ossification segmental ROM was decreased, but it did not affect clinical outcomes.

No abstract