Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
Left: Among patients who were preoperatively aligned, there was no statistically significant difference in either the “preserved” or “worsened” groups between stock devices and personalized interbody devices. Right: Among patients who were preoperatively malaligned, there was a statistically significant increase in the “restored” and a statistically significant decrease in the “worsened” groups compared with stock devices (P < 0.05; stock device data from Leveque et al6).
- Figure 2
Changes in spinal alignment parameters for the entire cohort of 1- and 2-level fusion patients at pre- and postoperative time points, including lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and the calculation of PI–LL mismatch. Comparison between personalized interbody devices (left) and stock interbody devices (right).
Tables
Characteristics Preoperative Postoperative Pre- to Postoperative Change Significance (P < 0.05) Lumbar lordosis, degrees, mean (SD; range) 50.9 (12.4; 21–77) 54.2 (13.5; 17–85) 3.3 (8.2; –25–32) <0.001 Pelvic incidence, degrees, mean (SD; range) 57.5 (13.0; 33–88) 58.4 (12.5; 37–88) 0.9 (3.3; –10–11) 0.002 Spinopelvic alignment (PI–LL mismatch), degrees, mean (SD; range) 6.6 (11.5; –18–32) 4.2 (12.0; –29–42) –2.5 (8.6; –30–29) 0.001 Patients with spinopelvic malalignment (PI–LL mismatch ≥ 10°), n (%) 52 (38.5) 36 (26.7) 0.006 Abbreviations: LL, lumbar lordosis; PI, pelvic incidence.
- Table 2
Radiographic information separated into pre- and postoperative alignment categories.
Characteristics Degrees, mean (SD; range) Significancea P < 0.005 Preserved n = 76 (56.3%) Restored n = 23 (17.0%) Not Corrected n = 29 (21.5%) Worsened n = 7 (5.2%) Preoperative Lumbar lordosis 55.0 (10.1; 30–76) 45.1 (13.8; 21–73) 44.7 (11.2; 26–62) 50.3 (17.8; 24–77) <0.001 Pelvic incidence 54.0 (10.9; 36–83) 61.4 (14.5; 41–88) 64.7 (11.9; 42–83) 53.3 (18.5; 33–85) <0.001 Spinopelvic alignment (PI–LL) –1.0 (7.1; –18–10) 16.3 (5.6; 10–30) 20.0 (5.9; 11–32) 3.0 (8.0; –13–9) <0.001 Postoperative Lumbar lordosis 58.3 (11.1; 37–85) 56.3 (13.5; 29–81) 45.3 (12.2; 17–62) 39.9 (16.7; 22–71) <0.001 Pelvic incidence 55.4 (10.9; 37–84) 60.6 (14.7; 38–88) 65.1 (11.3; 42–84) 55.8 (16.0; 42–84) 0.003 Spinopelvic alignment (PI–LL) –2.9 (8.1; –29–9) 4.3 (4.6; –9–10) 19.8 (8.2; 10–42) 15.9 (4.2; 12–23) <0.001 Change from baseline Lumbar lordosis 3.3 (6.3; –10–22) 11.2 (7.4; 2–32) 0.5 (7.1; –21–21) –10.4 (7.8; –25 to –2) <0.001 Pelvic incidence 1.4 (2.9; –5–11) –0.8 (3.4; –10–4) 0.4 (3.8; –5–11) 2.5 (3.6; –1–10) 0.017 Spinopelvic alignment (PI–LL) –1.9 (6.5; –21–11) –12.0 (6.9; –30 to –2) –0.2 (7.0; –13–21) 13.0 (8.2; 5–29) <0.001 Abbreviations: LL, indicates lumbar lordosis; PI, pelvic incidence; PI–LL, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis.
↵a One-way analysis of variance tests were used to categorize differences for each alignment measure between all 4 alignment groups.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.