Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleSpecial Issue (Invited)

Changes in Alignment at Untreated Vertebral Levels Following Short-Segment Fusion Using Personalized Interbody Cages: Leveraging Personalized Medicine to Reduce the Risk of Reoperation

Jeffrey P. Mullin, Jahangir Asghar, Ashvin I. Patel, Joseph A. Osorio, Justin S. Smith, Christopher P. Ames, John Small, Atman Desai, Adrien Ponticorvo and Rodrigo J. Nicolau
International Journal of Spine Surgery August 2024, 8639; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8639
Jeffrey P. Mullin
1 Department of Neurosurgery, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
MD, MBA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jeffpaulmullin@gmail.com
Jahangir Asghar
2 Department of Spine Surgery, Elite Spine Health and Wellness, Plantation, FL, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ashvin I. Patel
3 Department of Spine Surgery, Kennedy-White Orthopedic Center, Sarasota, FL, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph A. Osorio
4 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
MD, PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Justin S. Smith
5 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
MD, PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher P. Ames
6 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Small
7 Department of Spine Surgery, Center for Spinal Disorders at Florida Orthopedic Institute, Temple Terrace, FL, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Atman Desai
8 Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adrien Ponticorvo
9 Reserach Spine Department, Carlsmed, Carlsbad, CA, USA
PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rodrigo J. Nicolau
9 Reserach Spine Department, Carlsmed, Carlsbad, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Intervertebral lordosis (IVL) measurements.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Definition of lordosis distribution index (LDI). Abbreviations: LL, lumbar lordosis; LLL, lower lumbar lordosis

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Lordosis categories. Abbreviations: LDI, lordosis distribution index.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Lordosis distribution index (LDI) pre- and postoperative comparisons for each patient color coded into different preoperative distribution groups.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    (A) Intervertebral lordosis (IVL) distribution in the lumbar region. (B) The ratio of IVL to lumbar lordosis (LL) distribution in the lumbar region.

  • Figure 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6

    Lordosis distribution index (LDI) comparisons for different distribution groups. The pre- to postoperative changes in LDI for each group as reported by Bari et al14 are also shown.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Baseline demographics and operative parameters.

    ParameterValue
    Number of patients 111
    Sex, women, n (%) 63 (56.8)
    Age, y, mean (SD) 62 ± 13.1
    Follow-up time, d, median (range) 64 ± 38.5
    PICs implanted, n  135
    Approach, n (% of PICs)
     ALIF 85 (63)
     LLIF 7 (5)
     TLIF 43 (32)
    Number of levels fused, n (% of PICs)
     1-level 72 (53)
     2-levels 63 (47)
    Level of fusion, n (% of PICs)
     L4–L5 27 (20)
     L5–S1 45 (33)
     L4–S1 63 (47)
    • Abbreviations: ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; LLIF, lateral lumbar interbody fusion; PICs, personalized interbody cages; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Radiographic spinopelvic measurements.

    ParameterCombined
    (N = 111)
    Normal
    (LDI 50–80%)
    (n = 81)
    Hypolordotic
    (LDI <50%)
    (n = 14)
    Hyperlordotic
    (LDI >80%)
    (n = 16)
    PI (°)
     Preoperative57.29 (12.56)56.80 (12.25)63.81 (12.48)54.44 (13.20)
     Postoperative58.45 (12.25)58.24 (11.73)64.71 (11.80)54.07 (13.73)
     Change0.891.260.18−0.37
     P 0.007 0.002 0.8390.622
    LL (°)
     Preoperative51.46 (11.73)53.49 (11.82)50.29 (8.04)42.23 (9.63)
     Postoperative54.73 (12.69)56.18 (13.20)58.54 (5.24)44.06 (9.00)
     Change3.272.698.261.83
     P <0.001 0.001 0.011 0.230
    LLL (°)
     Preoperative32.7 (9.37)33.95 (8.10)19.48 (6.68)37.99 (7.29)
     Postoperative35.96 (9.76)37.41 (9.66)27.11 (6.81)36.37 (8.70)
     Change3.263.477.63−1.62
     P <0.001 <0.001 0.009 0.404
    • Abbreviations: LDI, lordosis distribution index; LL, lumbar lordosis; LLL, lower lumbar lordosis; PI, pelvic incidence.

    • Note: Pre- and postoperative values are presented as mean (SD). Significant P values (<0.05) are shown in bold.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Calculated lumbar parameters.

    ParameterCombined
    (N = 111)
    Normal
    (LDI 50%–80%)
    (n = 81)
    Hypolordotic
    (LDI <50%)
    (n = 14)
    Hyperlordotic
    (LDI >80%)
    (n = 16)
    PI−LL (°)
     Preoperative5.98 (11.13)3.58 (10.35)13.04 (11.99)12.21 (9.89)
     Postoperative3.73 (10.92)2.06 (9.71)6.16 (13.12)10.01 (12.64)
     Change−2.33−1.49−7.64−2.20
     P 0.003 0.071 0.031 0.241
    LDI (%)
     Preoperative64.37 (16.10)63.72 (8.17)37.77 (9.07)90.91 (7.77)
     Postoperative67.11 (16.29)67.53 (13.34)46.18 (10.43)83.33 (14.62)
     Change2.753.818.41−7.58
     P 0.045 0.010 0.030 0.092
    • Abbreviations: LDI, lordosis distribution index; PI−LL, difference between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis.

    • Note: Pre- and postoperative values are presented as mean (SD). Significant P values (<0.05) are shown in bold.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Patient LDI pre- and postoperatively (N = 111).

    LDINormal LDI GroupHypolordotic GroupHyperlordotic Group
    Preoperative, n (%)
     LDI >80%0016 (14%)
     LDI 50%–80%81 (73%)00
     LDI <50%014 (13%)0
    Postoperative, n (%)
     LDI >80%8 (7%)08 (7%)
     LDI 50%–80%68 (61%)6 (5%)8 (7%)
     LDI <50%5 (5%)8 (7%)0
    • Abbreviation: LDI, lordosis distribution index.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Radiographic intervertebral measurements.

    ParameterCombined
    (N = 111)
    Normal
    (LDI 50%–80%)
    (n = 81)
    Hypolordotic
    (LDI <50%)
    (n = 14)
    Hyperlordotic
    (LDI >80%)
    (n = 16)
    L1−L2 IVL (°)
     Preoperative6.75 (3.67)7.02 (3.66)7.55 (3.68)4.34 (2.91)
     Postoperative6.49 (3.38)6.43 (3.34)8.50 (3.60)4.85 (2.51)
     Change−0.18−0.491.280.19
     P 0.6030.2460.1060.817
    L2−L3 IVL (°)
     Preoperative8.62 (4.51)8.44 (4.08)11.81 (6.09)6.46 (3.79)
     Postoperative8.34 (3.94)8.19 (3.86)11.46 (3.63)6.06 (2.83)
     Change−0.30−0.20−0.64−0.53
     P 0.4520.5740.7840.457
    L3−L4 IVL (°)
     Preoperative9.98 (4.42)10.01 (4.10)12.32 (5.71)7.42 (3.74)
     Postoperative9.88 (4.42)10.09 (4.16)11.92 (4.68)6.66 (4.16)
     Change−0.050.08−0.27−0.61
     P 0.8780.8320.8200.472
    L4−L5 IVL (°)
     Preoperative9.57 (4.75)9.98 (4.92)7.95 (3.88)8.74 (4.33)
     Postoperative10.54 (4.37)11.16 (4.55)8.75 (3.64)8.82 (2.99)
     Change0.870.930.890.50
     P 0.1070.1450.6160.673
    L5−S1 IVL (°)
     Preoperative10.54 (6.35)11.07 (6.67)6.77 (4.23)11.22 (5.13)
     Postoperative14.52 (4.82)15.12 (4.44)11.79 (5.43)13.95 (5.57)
     Change4.274.245.623.12
     P <0.001 <0.001 0.021 0.098
    • Abbreviations: IVL, intervertebral lordosis; LDI, lordosis distribution index.

    • Note: Pre- and postoperative values are presented as mean (SD). Significant P values (<0.05) are shown in bold. Shaded areas represent levels treated with PIC, L4−L5, L5−S1, or L4−S1.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S2)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S2
1 Apr 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Changes in Alignment at Untreated Vertebral Levels Following Short-Segment Fusion Using Personalized Interbody Cages: Leveraging Personalized Medicine to Reduce the Risk of Reoperation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Changes in Alignment at Untreated Vertebral Levels Following Short-Segment Fusion Using Personalized Interbody Cages: Leveraging Personalized Medicine to Reduce the Risk of Reoperation
Jeffrey P. Mullin, Jahangir Asghar, Ashvin I. Patel, Joseph A. Osorio, Justin S. Smith, Christopher P. Ames, John Small, Atman Desai, Adrien Ponticorvo, Rodrigo J. Nicolau
International Journal of Spine Surgery Aug 2024, 8639; DOI: 10.14444/8639

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Changes in Alignment at Untreated Vertebral Levels Following Short-Segment Fusion Using Personalized Interbody Cages: Leveraging Personalized Medicine to Reduce the Risk of Reoperation
Jeffrey P. Mullin, Jahangir Asghar, Ashvin I. Patel, Joseph A. Osorio, Justin S. Smith, Christopher P. Ames, John Small, Atman Desai, Adrien Ponticorvo, Rodrigo J. Nicolau
International Journal of Spine Surgery Aug 2024, 8639; DOI: 10.14444/8639
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Personalized Approaches to Spine Surgery
  • Does Pedicle Morphology Affect the Safety and Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement Using 3D-Printed Guides? A 5-Year, Single-Center Experience With 2210 Screws Placed for Adult Spinal Deformity Reconstruction
  • Patient-Specific Rods in Adolescent and Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Narrative Review
Show more Special Issue (Invited)

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • lumbar fusion
  • lordosis
  • personalized interbody cage
  • LDI
  • reciprocal changes
  • adjacent segment disease
  • short segment fusion
  • preoperative planning

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire