↓ Skip to main content

Georg Schmorl Prize of the German Spine Society (DWG) 2017: correction of spino-pelvic alignment with relordosing mono- and bisegmental TLIF spondylodesis

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Georg Schmorl Prize of the German Spine Society (DWG) 2017: correction of spino-pelvic alignment with relordosing mono- and bisegmental TLIF spondylodesis
Published in
European Spine Journal, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5503-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederick Galla, Dirk Wähnert, Ulf Liljenqvist

Abstract

A balanced ratio of the main parameters of lumbar lordosis (LL) and pelvic incidence (PI) has high clinical relevance. A postoperative mismatch of LL and PI has been described in the literature to be associated with an inferior clinical outcome and higher postoperative revision rates. The aim of this retrospective, radiological study is to evaluate the magnitude of relordosing in mono-/bisegmental TLIF spondylodesis affecting the spino-pelvic alignment and the main contributing factors. 164 patients (pat.) underwent monosegmental (n = 115, G1) and bisegmental (n = 49, G2) TLIF spondylodesis, respectively, for different indications in 2016 in our hospital. Pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis (preop., postop., 3 months postop.), implanted cage sizes, and the use of additional Smith-Petersen osteotomies were analysed retrospectively. Patients were divided into three groups depending on match of LL/PI (PI-LL < 10° green, PI-LL = 10-20° yellow, PI-LL > 20° red). Furthermore, a differentiation was made between surgeons with more than or less than 10 years of spinal surgery experience, respectively. 29.6% of pat. in G1 and 16.3% in G2 showed a highly pronounced preoperative spino-pelvic mismatch (red). A high grade of mismatch (yellow) between LL/PI was seen in 29.6% in G1 and in 38.8% in G2. The remaining patients already had a balanced ratio of LL/PI (green). Through relordosing TLIF the LL could be corrected significantly (p < 0.05). Therefore, the number of patients with a balanced sagittal alignment (green) increased from 40.9% preop. to 70.4% postoperative in G1 and from 44.9 to 85.7% in G2 (p < 0.05). The number of pat. with highly pronounced preoperative mismatch (red) could be lowered in G1 from 29.6 to 13.9% and in G2 from 16.3 to 2% postoperative (p < 0.05). In G1, the preoperative LL could be corrected from 46.3° to 53.8° (yellow) and 35.7° to 45.8° (red), while in G2, a correction was possible from 43.4° to 51.5° (yellow) and 36.6° to 50.1° (red) (p < 0.05). No significant difference of segmental/complete LL was found between radiologic measurement immediately postoperative and at the 3-month follow-up. In monosegmental fusion higher cages sizes lead to a better match of LL/PI (p < 0.05). The specific cage lordosis (5° vs. 10°) had no influence on the extent of relordosing. Experienced surgeons had significant higher postoperative matches of LL/PI (p < 0.05) and accomplished more osteotomies (p < 0.05). This retrospective study demonstrates that significant relordosing and, therefore, correction of the spino-pelvic alignment are possible with mono-/bisegmental TLIF spondylodesis. Positive influence of higher cage sizes and surgeon's experience was shown. We conclude that the ratio of LL/PI should be taken into account preoperatively in lumbar fusion surgery when planning mono-/bisegmental TLIF spondylodesis to optimize spino-pelvic alignment. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Other 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 61%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,168,852
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#718
of 4,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,303
of 437,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#14
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,666 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.