Orthopedics

Review Article 

Adult Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis

Eugene Wong, MBBS, MMed; Farhaan Altaf, MBBS, FRCS; Lawrence J. Oh, MD; Randolph J. Gray, MBBS, FRACS

Abstract

Adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis is a 3-dimensional deformity defined as a coronal deviation of greater than 10°. It causes significant pain and disability in the elderly. With the aging of the population, the incidence of adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis will continue to increase. During the past decade, advancements in surgical techniques and instrumentation have changed the management of adult spinal deformity and led to improved long-term outcomes. In this article, the authors provide a comprehensive review of the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(6):e930–e939.]

Abstract

Adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis is a 3-dimensional deformity defined as a coronal deviation of greater than 10°. It causes significant pain and disability in the elderly. With the aging of the population, the incidence of adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis will continue to increase. During the past decade, advancements in surgical techniques and instrumentation have changed the management of adult spinal deformity and led to improved long-term outcomes. In this article, the authors provide a comprehensive review of the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(6):e930–e939.]

Degenerative lumbar scoliosis is a 3-dimensional deformity of the spine with a coronal deviation of greater than 10°. The reported incidence of scoliosis in adulthood has varied from 1.5% to 29.4%.1–4 The aging of the population, coupled with an increasing focus on quality of life, has rendered degenerative scoliosis a considerable health care concern.5 Adult scoliosis, compared with the scoliosis of children and adolescents, is more frequently encountered in the general spine practice.5

Advancements in surgical techniques and instrumentation during the past decade, supported by improvements in anesthesia, have led to significant progress being made in the management of adult spinal deformity. The authors provide a comprehensive review of the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of adult degenerative scoliosis.

Etiopathogenesis

Adult scoliosis may result from the progression of an early onset scoliosis, idiopathic scoliosis, or a compensation to a deformity elsewhere, or may arise de novo without preexisting scoliosis. This review focuses on the latter—de novo or adult degenerative scoliosis.

Decreased bone density was previously associated with the etiopathogenesis of degenerative scoliosis.6 However, this was rejected based on the lack of supporting evidence.6 The pathophysiology of degenerative scoliosis involves the asymmetric degeneration of the intervertebral disks and the facet joints at different levels, leading to unequal loading of the spinal column.7,8 The asymmetric loading, together with degeneration, initiates a dynamic pattern of curve progression, producing a 3-dimensional deformity.9 It most commonly affects the lumbar spine, where there is a higher incidence of degenerative disk disease.

At a biological level, osteophytes are formed at the facet joint and vertebral end plates, further narrowing the spinal canal.9 This is compounded by ligamentum flavum hypertrophy and calcification.9 A reduction in the caliber of the spinal canal causes central and lateral recessal spinal stenosis. Instability and collapse of the disk height can cause foraminal stenosis.10,11

Instability of the spinal column ensues secondary to the destruction of the facet joints and intervertebral disks. This can be manifested as a spondylolisthesis—anteroposterior translation of one vertebra in relation to the adjacent vertebra in the sagittal plane. The instability also leads to increased axial rotation of the vertebral bodies in relation to one another. This is most visible in the frontal plane as a lateral listhesis (lateral translation of one vertebra in relation to the adjacent vertebra).12

Spinal column instability caused by extensive facetectomies performed during spine surgery can also manifest as degenerative scoliosis. The vertebrae above the level of the facetectomies gradually progress toward forward translation and rotation, leading to the development of a scoliotic deformity.13,14

Natural History

Adult degenerative scoliosis is most commonly seen in patients older than 40 years.15,16 Although the incidence of degenerative scoliosis increases with age, the condition is not necessarily accompanied by a greater deformity with age. A higher prevalence exists in whites compared with other races.16

The spinal curvature seen in degenerative scoliosis tends to progress at a rate of 1° to 6° per year, with an average increase of 3° per year.5 Patient age and sex have not been found to be associated with the rate of curve progression. Curves of a greater magnitude (>30°), increased vertebral rotation at the apex of the curve, and more pronounced lateral listhesis (>6 mm) have been found to be associated with a higher degree of curve progression.17

Clinical Presentation

Both axial back pain and leg pain are commonly reported by adults presenting with a spinal deformity. Whether both symptoms are present and, if so, the relative severity of each need to be determined.

Back pain has been reported in 40% to 90% of patients with degenerative scoliosis.18 The etiology of the back pain is often multifactorial and can be attributed to muscle fatigue, facet arthropathy, and degenerative disk disease.5 Loss of lumbar lordosis, commonly seen in degenerative scoliosis, can cause muscle pain secondary to fatigue of spinal musculature.19

Leg pain occurs secondary to foraminal nerve root compression or from neurogenic claudication due to central spinal stenosis.20 It is important to elicit whether the pain is unilateral or bilateral and whether the symptoms are radicular or more consistent with neurogenic claudication.

Radiographic Evaluation

Full-length standing posteroanterior and lateral radiographs of the spine are required to accurately evaluate the entirety of the spinal deformity (Figure 1). Patients are instructed to remove their shoes. Any lower limb discrepancy is compensated with a shoe lift before the radiograph is obtained. Radiographs should also include the hip joints such that the pelvic parameters can also be measured.

Preoperative posteroanterior (A) and lateral sagittal assessment (B) radiographs of a patient with adult degenerative scoliosis. Abbreviation: SVA, sagittal vertical axis.

Figure 1:

Preoperative posteroanterior (A) and lateral sagittal assessment (B) radiographs of a patient with adult degenerative scoliosis. Abbreviation: SVA, sagittal vertical axis.

Patients are asked to maintain their knees and hips in extension. For the posteroanterior view, the arms can be hanging or the hands can be held behind the cassette. For the lateral view, patients stand naturally, looking horizontally; their hands rest on a vertical support, their arms are bent, and their elbows are relaxed.21 Patients should not hold onto a railing, as doing so often leads to an underestimation of positive sagittal balance.

There is also an increasing role of EOS imaging (EOS Imaging, Paris France) of the spine. This is a biplanar image obtained while the patient is standing. The dose of radiation absorbed by the patient is reduced. EOS imaging allows quantitative assessment of the degree of compensatory mechanisms such as flexion of the knees and hips, permits measurement of pelvic parameters, and provides a 3-dimensional qualitative analysis of the degree of scoliosis.22

If surgery is considered, lateral bending radiographs (full-length posteroanterior plain radiographs with the patient bending to the right and to the left) are first obtained to determine the flexibility of the scoliosis curvature.

Magnetic resonance imaging yields excellent soft tissue detail and is useful in revealing intervertebral disk disease, spondylotic changes, and intraspinal anomalies.23 Unless contraindicated, magnetic resonance imaging should be obtained in all cases of possible neurologic compromise.

Computed tomography provides information that is useful for preoperative surgical planning, such as which segments of the spine are fixed and which are mobile.24 Computed tomography myelography provides intraspinal information in addition to high-resolution bony detail, particularly when a patient has had surgery with spinal fixation. It is extremely useful for localizing sites of central and foraminal neural compression. A dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan is often obtained preoperatively to evaluate for osteoporosis, which causes osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporosis worsens the deformity and may require additional preoperative optimization such as medical management. The presence of osteoporosis is also important in the context of surgical planning because of the associated higher risk of instrumentation failure.

Sagittal Balance

Spinal deformity can create suboptimal spinal alignment and may lead to increased energy requirements to maintain appropriate posture and balance. Gait and posture are their best when the head and the trunk fall over the pelvis. In this ideal position, the body center of mass falls over the femoral axis, balancing the body in an upright posture. The sagittal vertical axis, a global measure of sagittal alignment, is the horizontal distance between the C7 plumb line and the posterosuperior corner of the sacrum. By convention, positive sagittal balance occurs when the C7 plumb line falls anterior to the posterosuperior corner of the S1 end plate. A line up to 5 cm anterior to the posterosuperior corner of the sacrum may be an acceptable range, as this is not likely to cause symptomatic sagittal imbalance.23

Sagittal spinal alignment has been strongly correlated with measures of health-related quality of life.25–28 Glassman et al,26 in a retrospective review of 752 patients with adult scoliosis, found a strong linear correlation between the degree of positive sagittal balance and the prevalence of the symptoms of back pain.

Global spinal alignment may be sub-divided into its component parts, namely lumbar lordosis and thoracic kyphosis. Lumbar lordosis is measured from the superior end plate of L1 to the superior end plate of S1 and has an important role in the maintenance of an upright posture. Normative values of 40° to 60° have been reported in the adult population.29 Lumbar lordosis is known to decrease with age and with spinal deformity. Decreasing lordosis or flat-back deformity has been associated with the inability to maintain spinal balance, resulting in pain and disability.19 Furthermore, thoracic kyphosis increases with age and therefore exacerbates an effect on global spinal alignment.

Previously, the relationship of the pelvis to the spine was ignored as contributing to sagittal balance. Recent studies have shown that the pelvis is critical to spinal alignment, as the morphology of the pelvis sets the magnitude of lumbar lordosis required to maintain sagittal balance.30–40

Patients who have sagittal imbalance attempt to bring their head into alignment with their pelvis in the sagittal plane. These patients compensate with pelvic retroversion, which results in the acetabulum assuming a more anterior position. Mild pelvic retroversion may be accompanied by hip extension, whereas more severe or fixed deformities may be accompanied by hip and knee flexion. Figure 2 illustrates the body's compensatory mechanisms to maintain sagittal balance.

Illustration of the body's compensatory mechanisms to sagittal imbalance.

Figure 2:

Illustration of the body's compensatory mechanisms to sagittal imbalance.

Segmental compensatory mechanisms for sagittal imbalance may also be present. Segmental lumbar hyperlordosis of adjacent segments limits the consequences of lumbar kyphosis on the shift of axis gravity. Retrolisthesis in the immediate adjacent segments of approximately 2 to 3 mm may also occur, commonly resulting in severe foraminal stenosis and occasionally in central stenosis.41

Pelvic parameters help define and measure the contribution of the pelvis to sagittal balance. Critical to the under-standing of spinopelvic alignment is the recognition of the importance of pelvic parameters and how they interact with spinal regional curvatures (lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis). Key measures of pelvic alignment include pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and sacral slope.

The pelvic incidence is an angle that is fixed in individuals once skeletal maturity has been reached; it does not depend on the position of the pelvis.42 The pelvic incidence is measured by determining the angle between 2 lines: a line drawn perpendicular to the sacral end plate and a line from the femoral head axis to the midpoint of the sacral end plate (Figure 3).43 Although normative mean values for pelvic incidence range from 50° to 55°, individual normative values have been reported to range from 28° to 84°.27 With a large pelvic incidence, the sacrum is more horizontal and thus requires a larger lumbar lordosis to maintain proper global sagittal alignment of the trunk. Conversely, with a low pelvic incidence, the more vertical sacrum requires a smaller lumbar lordosis to achieve a balanced posture.

Illustration showing the pelvic incidence, which is measured by determining the angle between 2 lines: a line drawn perpendicular to the sacral end plate and a line from the femoral head axis to the midpoint of the sacral end plate.

Figure 3:

Illustration showing the pelvic incidence, which is measured by determining the angle between 2 lines: a line drawn perpendicular to the sacral end plate and a line from the femoral head axis to the midpoint of the sacral end plate.

The pelvic tilt is the angle formed between a vertical reference line drawn up from the center of the femoral heads (femoral head axis) and a line drawn from the femoral head axis to the midpoint of the sacral end plate (Figure 4).44 This is a dynamic pelvic parameter that can increase or decrease through rotation about the hip axis and can also change over time. The pelvic tilt is a measure of the degree of pelvic retroversion. It is a compensatory parameter in that a patient with positive sagittal malalignment who retroverts the pelvis in an effort to maintain an upright posture will have an increase in the pelvic tilt. As the pelvic tilt increases, it represents a compensatory mechanism that requires both effort and energy. Normative mean values for pelvic tilt range from 11° to 15°.45

Illustration showing the pelvic tilt, which is the angle formed between 2 lines: a vertical reference line drawn up from the center of the femoral heads (femoral head axis) and a line drawn from the femoral head axis to the midpoint of the sacral end plate.

Figure 4:

Illustration showing the pelvic tilt, which is the angle formed between 2 lines: a vertical reference line drawn up from the center of the femoral heads (femoral head axis) and a line drawn from the femoral head axis to the midpoint of the sacral end plate.

The sacral slope is the angle formed between a line drawn along the sacral end plate and a reference horizontal line (Figure 5).46 A mathematical relationship exists among these pelvic parameters such that the pelvic incidence is the sum of the sacral slope and the pelvic tilt.17,28,44,47 As pelvic tilt increases (pelvic retroversion), sacral slope decreases and the sacral end plate becomes more horizontal.29

Illustration of the sacral slope, which is the angle formed between a line drawn along the sacral end plate and a reference horizontal line.

Figure 5:

Illustration of the sacral slope, which is the angle formed between a line drawn along the sacral end plate and a reference horizontal line.

Management

Nonoperative treatment is considered for adult spinal deformity in the absence of significant stenotic and/or radicular symptoms. Nonoperative management should also be tried first in patients with only mechanical back pain.48

Nonoperative management involves prescribed analgesics and muscle-strengthening exercise. Epidural and/or selective nerve root injections are often used for the symptomatic management of back and/or leg pain. Little evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of the nonsurgical modes of treating symptomatic adult scoliosis.36,37,49,50

Bracing is not well tolerated by patients and is not recommended in the management of adult scoliosis. Unlike the scoliosis seen in children and adolescents, which results from spinal growth, progression of spinal deformity in adults is secondary to transverse instability. Thus, bracing does not prevent progression of the deformity, and muscle deconditioning occurs with prolonged use.51

Surgery is considered after all non-operative means of treatment have been exhausted. Several challenges are en-countered in the operative management of adult degenerative scoliosis. In adults, the scoliosis curves are more rigid secondary to associated degenerative changes. These patients tend to be older and to have multiple associated comorbidities; thus, their surgical risk is increased. Patients must be carefully selected if surgery is to be successful.

Common indications for the operative management of adolescent scoliosis include the presence of a significant curve magnitude, progression of deformity, and cosmesis. The indications for operative treatment in adults are notably different, including the presence of a progressive neurological deficit, disability secondary to the deformity itself, and associated severe pain. Documented curve progression with coronal or sagittal plane imbalance and resulting disability is also an important indication for surgery in these patients.48 It has been found that preoperative sagittal imbalance correlates with pain and disability and that postoperative improvement in sagittal balance is an independent predictor of surgical result.52 Therefore, patients with a decompensated sagittal imbalance (sagittal vertical axis >5 cm) are more likely to receive more benefit from operative intervention than patients with a compensated sagittal imbalance (sagittal vertical axis <5 cm).53 In adult scoliosis, the magnitude of the deformity as measured by the Cobb angle of the curve has not been shown to correlate with symptom severity.27,54

The goals of surgery for adult scoliosis are decompression of neural elements and achievement of a balanced and fused spine. Patients' symptoms (eg, radicular pain, claudicant pain, and/or axial back pain) and the radiographic characteristics of the deformity are important surgical considerations. For example, a patient with a degenerative scoliosis having only radicular symptoms may be eligible for a limited focal decompression. Because surgery can range from a laminectomy alone to an arthrodesis of the spine with instrumentation using only a posterior or a combined anterior and posterior approach, the importance of carefully considering patients' symptoms cannot be overstated.

Spinal decompression alone without arthrodesis can be considered for patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis at one or two spinal levels with a mild deformity (Cobb angle of scoliosis curve less than 20°), no instability (eg, spondylolisthesis/lateral listhesis), and a normal overall spinal balance.5 The decompression procedure should be avoided at the proximal and distal extents of the scoliosis curve and at the curve apex. Standalone decompression should only be performed in the above select group of patients to reduce the risk of the decompression procedure causing iatrogenic instability and thereby accelerating curve progression.55,56

It is difficult to define a specific value for the Cobb angle that indicates an arthrodesis should be performed. Therefore, it is important to examine the clinical and the radiographic findings together. Patients who have significant axial back pain can be considered for an arthrodesis to augment the decompression. In cases in which signs of instability (spondylolisthesis, rotation, lateral listhesis greater than 6 mm) are present, decompression alone will invariably induce further instability by removing posterior column elements; therefore, arthrodesis should be considered.

Achieving a sagittally balanced spine, by correcting the lumbar lordosis as close to the pelvic incidence as possible, reduces the energy requirements for ambulation.43 Thus, if a patient undergoing surgical reconstruction has a low pelvic incidence, the surgeon must maintain a correspondingly low lumbar lordosis during reconstruction. Conversely, in a patient with a high pelvic incidence, the surgeon must aim to achieve a correspondingly high lumbar lordosis. A sagittally balanced spine also reduces pain from muscle fatigue and improves overall patient satisfaction.43 Historically, surgical treatment has focused more on the coronal alignment and less on the sagittal parameters. However, several studies have shown that proper sagittal alignment determines the outcome for adults undergoing spinal deformity surgery (Figure 6).44,57

Flow chart of an algorithm incorporating the major factors contributing to the decision regarding surgical treatment. Abbreviation: SF-36, Short Form-36.

Figure 6:

Flow chart of an algorithm incorporating the major factors contributing to the decision regarding surgical treatment. Abbreviation: SF-36, Short Form-36.

By understanding and measuring spinal and pelvic parameters, surgeons can more effectively determine the amount of correction necessary to achieve a good outcome.

The flexibility of the spinal curvature will influence the choice of surgical procedure to correct the deformity. A rigid deformity is one that does not correct more than 50% on bending or traction radiographs. A rigid spine that is almost ankylosed often requires a thorough release or an osteotomy.58 Less severe and more flexible deformities may be corrected posteriorly using Smith-Petersen59 or Ponte osteotomies.60 The Smith-Petersen osteotomy relies on a mobile disk space for correction. Resection of the spinous process, lamina, and facet joints is performed in this osteotomy. The Ponte osteotomy involves removal of the inferior part of the spinous process, lamina, and facet joints. The main difference between the Smith-Petersen osteotomy and the Ponte osteotomy is that the Smith-Petersen osteotomy was described for the treatment of already fused spines.

Fixed sagittal imbalance or fixed kyphotic deformities have been treated with Smith-Petersen and pedicle subtraction osteotomies. In a pedicle subtraction osteotomy, the vertebral body is decancelled through the partially resected pedicles and the lateral wall of the body by serially using curettes. The vertebral osteotomy is then closed in a controlled manner to achieve the required correction. Vertebral column resections are reserved for severe rigid deformities that would benefit from shortening as part of the correction. This challenging procedure, in which an entire vertebral body is resected to achieve deformity correction, has a significant complication rate.61

More recently, procedures called pedicle subtraction osteotomy “variants” have been described. Because degenerative scoliosis is a 3-dimensional deformity, an asymmetrical or biplanar pedicle subtraction osteotomy may be performed (ie, the wedge is shorter on the side of coronal imbalance and longer on the opposite side). These pedicle subtraction osteotomy variants may provide biplanar correction of deformity. They have less morbidity than a classic vertebral column resection, and recent studies have shown good results in terms of correction. To obtain an acceptable correction, comprehensive preoperative planning must include assessment of the wedge parameters.62Figure 1 shows such a 3-dimensional deformity in a patient who subsequently underwent an asymmetrical pedicle subtraction osteotomy and had a good outcome (Figure 7).

Postoperative lateral (A) and posteroanterior (B) radiographs of the patient from Figure 1, who underwent an asymmetric pedicle subtraction osteotomy.

Figure 7:

Postoperative lateral (A) and posteroanterior (B) radiographs of the patient from Figure 1, who underwent an asymmetric pedicle subtraction osteotomy.

Patients with degenerative scoliosis who have coronal and sagittal imbalance in addition to a stiff large curve often require an anterior and posterior approach. Releases performed anteriorly, which involve performing thorough diskectomies, reduce the stiffness of the spine, allowing for better deformity correction. Structural grafts placed in the anterior disk spaces provide anterior column support, achieve lordosis correction, and increase the rate of bony union.63–66

Minimally invasive approaches to correct spinal deformity have been gaining popularity. They reduce approach-related morbidity and enhance recovery, facilitating an early return to normal activity.67–76 Minimally invasive techniques, such as the transpsoas direct lateral approach, have been developed for the insertion of interbody cages. Minimally invasive techniques for pedicle screw insertion use percutaneous methods. Although there are no long-term studies regarding the outcomes of these techniques, short-term studies suggest that they can achieve satisfactory correction of scoliosis deformity in adults with less blood loss, a shorter inpatient hospital stay, and fewer complications compared with open approaches.77

Complications and Surgical Outcomes

An understanding of the risk factors for complications enables development of strategies to reduce them. Also, both surgeons and patients can make better clinical decisions pertaining to surgical treatment.

The incidence of complications is influenced by patients' age and associated comorbidities and the approach and complexity of surgery.78,79 Outcomes have significantly improved with advancements in surgical instrumentation, blood salvage, anesthetic techniques, and preoperative patient optimization.

Rates of infection for scoliosis surgery in general are reported to be between 1% and 2%. Adults with scoliosis undergoing surgery have a higher infection rate, ranging from 3% to 5%.80 Neurological injury is seen in 1% to 5% of cases.81

A study involving the Scoliosis Research Society database82 evaluated the outcomes of 4980 cases of adult scoliosis from 2004 to 2007. There was an overall complication rate of 13.4%. The rate of superficial wound infection was 0.9%, and the rate of deep wound infection was 1.5%. The rate of acute neurological deficit was 1%. A systematic review that examined the outcomes of adult scoliosis patients undergoing surgery found a greater than 40% incidence of perioperative adverse events.83 This review included 49 articles with a total of 3299 patients and a mean follow-up of 3.6 years.

The complexity of the surgical procedure correlates with the risk of complications. Osteotomies and vertebral column resections have a higher risk of complications, including neurological complications.84,85 Intraoperative neuromonitoring must be used to minimize the risk of neurological complications.86,87

The risk of pseudarthrosis is significantly greater among adults with scoliosis than among the pediatric population with scoliosis. The pseudarthrosis rate for adults after long fusion procedures has been reported to be as high as 24%.88 Autograft remains the gold standard grafting material to achieve a solid arthrodesis. Alternatives to local autograft include allograft products, ceramics, synthetics, and the bone morphogenetic proteins.

Proximal junctional kyphosis is a recognized complication among patients undergoing segmental instrumented fusion for spinal deformity.89–91 Proximal junctional kyphosis has traditionally been defined by a 10° or greater increase in kyphosis at the proximal junction as measured by the Cobb angle from the caudal end plate of the uppermost instrumented vertebra to the cephalad end plate of the 2 vertebra segments cranial to the uppermost instrumented vertebra.89 The prevalence rate for radiographic proximal junctional kyphosis in adult deformity patients after surgery is reported to be between 20% and 39%.92,93 It has been suggested that proximal junctional kyphosis is infrequently associated with revision surgery.94

Increasingly, proximal junctional failure has been distinguished from proximal junctional kyphosis in that proximal junctional failure includes not only an increase in kyphosis but also structural failure of either the uppermost instrumented vertebra or the vertebra immediately proximal to the fusion construct.95 Unlike traditionally defined proximal junctional kyphosis, proximal junctional failure has been clearly shown to be associated with higher morbidity, including increased pain, spinal instability, risk of neurologic injury, and need for revision surgery.96 Several preoperative risk factors have consistently emerged among adult deformity patients, including age and preoperative sagittal malalignment.89,90,93,96 Concordant with the preoperative sagittal malalignment of patients at highest risk for proximal junctional kyphosis is the demonstration that patients undergoing greater sagittal realignments are also at higher risk for proximal junctional kyphosis.90,92,95

Studies that have used validated health-related quality of life outcome scores have shown significant improvements after surgery for adult scoliosis, with satisfaction rates of up to 94%.97,98 Those patients with a greater spinal deformity (loss of lumbar lordosis, spinal instability, positive sagittal balance) are most likely to have significant improvement in quality of life outcomes.78 Furthermore, those patients with more significant disability preoperatively may benefit the most, in terms of improvement in their quality of life, from surgery.78 Despite facing a greater risk of complications, elderly patients may gain a disproportionately greater improvement in disability and pain with surgery as compared with their younger counter-parts.99–101 Patient-related factors such as obesity, depression/anxiety, and smoking can have a negative impact on operative outcomes.102

Conclusion

Degenerative lumbar scoliosis is a debilitating condition affecting a growing number of people around the world. Given the limited evidence regarding preventive measures, a better understanding of the pathophysiology of degenerative lumbar scoliosis, coupled with advances in drug delivery techniques, may maximize non-operative management.

Innovations in technology along with careful patient selection and optimization could hold the key to improving surgical outcomes for this high-risk group. Pelvic parameters play a critical role in health-related quality of life outcome measures and must be accounted for when planning spine surgery. Therefore, the authors suggest a structured approach to the management of adult degenerative scoliosis that incorporates patient and radiographic features (Figure 6). An understanding of the risk factors for complications permits the development of strategies to reduce them. It also allows both surgeons and patients to make better clinical decisions regarding surgical treatment for adult spine deformity.

References

  1. Aebi M. The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2005; 14(10):925–948 doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1053-9 [CrossRef].
  2. Kostuick JP, Bentivoglio J. The incidence of low-back pain in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981; 6(3):268–273 doi:10.1097/00007632-198105000-00009 [CrossRef].
  3. Pérennou D, Marcelli C, Hérisson C, Simon L. Adult lumbar scoliosis: epidemiologic aspects in a low-back pain population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(2):123–128 doi:10.1097/00007632-199401001-00001 [CrossRef].
  4. Jimbo S, Kobayashi T, Aono K, Atsuta Y, Matsuno T. Epidemiology of degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a community-based cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(20):1763–1770 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182575eaa [CrossRef].
  5. Ploumis A, Transfledt EE, Denis F. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis associated with spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2007; 7(4):428–436 doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.07.015 [CrossRef].
  6. Robin GC, Span Y, Steinberg R, Makin M, Menczel J. Scoliosis in the elderly: a follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1982; 7(4):355–359 doi:10.1097/00007632-198207000-00005 [CrossRef].
  7. Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991; 73(6):802–808 doi:10.2106/00004623-199173060-00002 [CrossRef].
  8. Murata Y, Takahashi K, Hanaoka E, Utsumi T, Yamagata M, Moriya H. Changes in scoliotic curvature and lordotic angle during the early phase of degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(20):2268–2273 doi:10.1097/00007632-200210150-00016 [CrossRef].
  9. Kotwal S, Pumberger M, Hughes A, Girardi F. Degenerative scoliosis: a review. HSS J. 2011; 7(3):257–264 doi:10.1007/s11420-011-9204-5 [CrossRef].
  10. Garfin SR, Herkowitz HN, Mirkovic S. Spinal stenosis. Instr Course Lect. 2000; 49:361–374.
  11. Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN. Lumbar spinal stenosis: treatment strategies and indications for surgery. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003; 34(2):281–295 doi:10.1016/S0030-5898(02)00069-X [CrossRef].
  12. Benoist M. Natural history of the aging spine. Eur Spine J. 2003; 12(suppl 2):S86–S89 doi:10.1007/s00586-003-0593-0 [CrossRef].
  13. Farfan HF. The pathological anatomy of degenerative spondylolisthesis: a cadaver study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1980; 5(5):412–418 doi:10.1097/00007632-198009000-00004 [CrossRef].
  14. Veldhuizen AG, Scholten PJ. Kinematics of the scoliotic spine as related to the normal spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987; 12(9):852–858 doi:10.1097/00007632-198711000-00005 [CrossRef].
  15. Silva FE, Lenke LG. Adult degenerative scoliosis: evaluation and management. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28(3):E1 doi:10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09271 [CrossRef].
  16. Kebaish KM, Neubauer PR, Voros GD, Khoshnevisan MA, Skolasky RL. Scoliosis in adults aged forty years and older: prevalence and relationship to age, race, and gender. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(9):731–736 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e9f120 [CrossRef].
  17. Pritchett JW, Bortel DT. Degenerative symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(6):700–703 doi:10.1097/00007632-199305000-00004 [CrossRef].
  18. Bradford DS, Tay B, Hu SS. Adult scoliosis: surgical indications, operative management, complications, and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(24):2617–2629 doi:10.1097/00007632-199912150-00009 [CrossRef].
  19. Lu DC, Chou D. Flatback syndrome. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2007; 18(2):289–294 doi:10.1016/j.nec.2007.01.007 [CrossRef].
  20. Ascani E, Bartolozzi P, Logroscino CA, et al. Natural history of untreated idiopathic scoliosis after skeletal maturity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986; 11(8):784–789 doi:10.1097/00007632-198610000-00007 [CrossRef].
  21. Morvan G, Mathieu P, Vuillemin V, et al. Standardized way for imaging of the sagittal spine balance. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20(suppl 5):602–608 doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1927-y [CrossRef].
  22. Illés T, Somoskeöy S. The EOS imaging system and its uses in daily orthopaedic practice. Int Orthop. 2012; 36(7):1325–1331 doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1512-y [CrossRef].
  23. Gupta MC. Degenerative scoliosis: options for surgical management. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003; 34(2):269–279 doi:10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00029-4 [CrossRef].
  24. Kim H, Kim HS, Moon ES, et al. Scoliosis imaging: what radiologists should know. Radiographics. 2010; 30(7):1823–1842 doi:10.1148/rg.307105061 [CrossRef].
  25. Jackson RP, McManus AC. Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age, sex, and size: a prospective controlled clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(14):1611–1618 doi:10.1097/00007632-199407001-00010 [CrossRef].
  26. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(18):2024–2029 doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000179086.30449.96 [CrossRef].
  27. Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy JP, Lafage V. Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(25):2224–2231 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ee6bd4 [CrossRef].
  28. Glassman SD, Carreon L, Dimar JR. Outcome of lumbar arthrodesis in patients sixty-five years of age or older: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(suppl 1, pt 1):77–84 doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01300 [CrossRef].
  29. Heary RF, Albert TJ. Spinal Deformities: The Essentials. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2007.
  30. Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J. Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J. 2002; 11(1):80–87 doi:10.1007/s005860000224 [CrossRef].
  31. Schwab F, Lafage V, Patel A, Farcy JP. Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(17):1828–1833 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a13c08 [CrossRef].
  32. Boulay C, Tardieu C, Hecquet J, et al. Sagittal alignment of spine and pelvis regulated by pelvic incidence: standard values and prediction of lordosis. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15(4):415–422 doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0984-5 [CrossRef].
  33. Lafage V, Bharucha NJ, Schwab F, et al. Multicenter validation of a formula predicting postoperative spinopelvic alignment. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 16(1):15–21 doi:10.3171/2011.8.SPINE11272 [CrossRef].
  34. Lafage V, Smith JS, Bess S, et al. Sagittal spino-pelvic alignment failures following three column thoracic osteotomy for adult spinal deformity. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21(4):698–704 doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1967-3 [CrossRef].
  35. Klineberg E, Schwab F, Ames C, et al. Acute reciprocal changes distant from the site of spinal osteotomies affect global postoperative alignment. Adv Orthop. 2011; 2011:415946 doi:10.4061/2011/415946 [CrossRef].
  36. Lafage V, Ames C, Schwab F, et al. Changes in thoracic kyphosis negatively impact sagittal alignment after lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a comprehensive radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(3):E180–E187 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318225b926 [CrossRef].
  37. Schwab FJ, Patel A, Shaffrey CI, et al. Sagittal realignment failures following pedicle subtraction osteotomy surgery: are we doing enough? Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 16(6):539–546 doi:10.3171/2012.2.SPINE11120 [CrossRef].
  38. Smith JS, Bess S, Shaffrey CI, et al. Dynamic changes of the pelvis and spine are key to predicting postoperative sagittal alignment after pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a critical analysis of preoperative planning techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(10):845–853 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823b0892 [CrossRef].
  39. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Lafage V, et al. Spontaneous improvement of cervical alignment after correction of global sagittal balance following pedicle subtraction osteotomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 17(4):300–307 doi:10.3171/2012.6.SPINE1250 [CrossRef].
  40. Schwab FJ, Bess S, Blondel B, et al. Combined assessment of pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence/lumbar lordosis mismatch and sagittal vertical axis predicts disability in adult spinal deformity: a prospective analysis. Spine2011; 11(10):S158–S159 doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.08.380 [CrossRef].
  41. Barrey C, Roussouly P, Le Huec J, D'Acunzi G, Perrin G. Compensatory mechanisms contributing to keep the sagittal balance of the spine. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(suppl 6):S834–S841 doi:10.1007/s00586-013-3030-z [CrossRef].
  42. Mac-Thiong JM, Berthonnaud E, Dimar JR II, Betz RR, Labelle H. Sagittal alignment of the spine and pelvis during growth. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(15):1642–1647 doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000132312.78469.7B [CrossRef].
  43. Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G, Hecquet J, Marty C. Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J. 1998; 7(2):99–103 doi:10.1007/s005860050038 [CrossRef].
  44. Lafage V, Schwab F, Patel A, Hawkinson N, Farcy JP. Pelvic tilt and truncal inclination: two key radiographic parameters in the setting of adults with spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(17):E599–E606 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181aad219 [CrossRef].
  45. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S, et al. Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(13):E803–E812 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318292b7b9 [CrossRef].
  46. Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J, Roussouly P, Labelle H. Analysis of the sagittal balance of the spine and pelvis using shape and orientation parameters. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005; 18(1):40–47 doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000117542.88865.77 [CrossRef].
  47. Ames CP, Smith JS, Scheer JK, et al. Impact of spinopelvic alignment on decision making in deformity surgery in adults: a review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 16(6):547–564 doi:10.3171/2012.2.SPINE11320 [CrossRef].
  48. Bradford DS, Tay BK, Hu SS. Adult scoliosis: surgical indications, operative management, complications, and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(24):2617–2629 doi:10.1097/00007632-199912150-00009 [CrossRef].
  49. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Shaffrey CI, et al. The costs and benefits of nonoperative management for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(5):578–582 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b0f2f8 [CrossRef].
  50. Everett CR, Patel RK. A systematic literature review of nonsurgical treatment in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(19) (suppl):S130–S134 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318134ea88 [CrossRef].
  51. van Dam BE. Nonoperative treatment of adult scoliosis. Orthop Clin North Am. 1988; 19(2):347–351.
  52. Lamartina C, Berjano P, Petruzzi M, et al. Criteria to restore the sagittal balance in deformity and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21(suppl 1):S27–S31 doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2236-9 [CrossRef].
  53. Yamada K, Abe Y, Yanagibashi Y, Hyakumachi T, Satoh S. Mid- and long-term clinical outcomes of corrective fusion surgery which did not achieve sufficient pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis value for adult spinal deformity. Scoliosis. 2015; 10(suppl 2):S17 doi:10.1186/1748-7161-10-S2-S17 [CrossRef].
  54. Schwab FJ, Smith VA, Biserni M, Gamez L, Farcy JP, Pagala M. Adult scoliosis: a quantitative radiographic and clinical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(4):387–392 doi:10.1097/00007632-200202150-00012 [CrossRef].
  55. Berven SH, Lowe T. The Scoliosis Research Society classification for adult spinal deformity. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2007; 18(2):207–213 doi:10.1016/j.nec.2007.03.002 [CrossRef].
  56. Birknes JK, White AP, Albert TJ, Shaffrey CI, Harrop JS. Adult degenerative scoliosis: a review. Neurosurgery. 2008; 63(3)(suppl):94–103 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000325485.49323.B2 [CrossRef].
  57. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S, et al. Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(13):E803–E812 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318292b7b9 [CrossRef].
  58. Bridwell KH. Decision making regarding Smith-Petersen vs. pedicle subtraction osteotomy vs. vertebral column resection for spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(19)(suppl):S171–S178 doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000231963.72810.38 [CrossRef].
  59. Smith-Petersen MN, Larson CB, Aufranc OE. Osteotomy of the spine for correction of flexion deformity in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1969; 66:6–9 doi:10.1097/00003086-196909000-00003 [CrossRef].
  60. Geck MJ, Macagno A, Ponte A, Shufflebarger HL. The Ponte procedure: posterior only treatment of Scheuermann's kyphosis using segmental posterior shortening and pedicle screw instrumentation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007; 20(8):586–593 doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31803d3b16 [CrossRef].
  61. Suk SI, Chung ER, Kim JH, Kim SS, Lee JS, Choi WK. Posterior vertebral column resection for severe rigid scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(14):1682–1687 doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000170590.21071.c1 [CrossRef].
  62. Cecchinato R, Berjano P, Aguirre MF, Lamartina C. Asymmetrical pedicle subtraction osteotomy in the lumbar spine in combined coronal and sagittal imbalance. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(suppl):S66–S71 doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3669-0 [CrossRef].
  63. Chen D, Fay LA, Lok J, Yuan P, Edwards WT, Yuan HA. Increasing neuroforaminal volume by anterior interbody distraction in degenerative lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20(1):74–79 doi:10.1097/00007632-199501000-00014 [CrossRef].
  64. Eck KR, Bridwell KH, Ungacta FF, Lapp MA, Lenke LG, Riew KD. Analysis of titanium mesh cages in adults with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(18):2407–2415 doi:10.1097/00007632-200009150-00023 [CrossRef].
  65. Buttermann GR, Glazer PA, Hu SS, Bradford DS. Anterior and posterior allografts in symptomatic thoracolumbar deformity. J Spinal Disord. 2001; 14(1):54–66 doi:10.1097/00002517-200102000-00009 [CrossRef].
  66. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K. Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine: do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects?Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20(12):1410–1418 doi:10.1097/00007632-199506020-00014 [CrossRef].
  67. Regan JJ, Yuan H, McAfee PC. Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine: minimally invasive spine surgery. A prospective multicenter study evaluating open and laparoscopic lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(4):402–411 doi:10.1097/00007632-199902150-00023 [CrossRef].
  68. Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007; 15(6):321–329 doi:10.5435/00124635-200706000-00001 [CrossRef].
  69. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(15)(suppl):S26–S35 doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000076895.52418.5E [CrossRef].
  70. Fessler RG. Minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2002; 51(5)(suppl 2):Siii–Siv doi:10.1097/00006123-200211002-00001 [CrossRef].
  71. Goldstein JA, McAfee PC. Minimally invasive endoscopic surgery of the spine. J South Orthop Assoc. 1996; 5(4):251–262.
  72. Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 2002; 51(5)(suppl):S166–S181 doi:10.1097/00006123-200211002-00023 [CrossRef].
  73. Lieberman IH, Willsher PC, Litwin DE, Salo PT, Kraetschmer BG. Transperitoneal laparoscopic exposure for lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(4):509–514 doi:10.1097/00007632-200002150-00019 [CrossRef].
  74. Olsen D, McCord D, Law M. Laparoscopic discectomy with anterior interbody fusion of L5–S1. Surg Endosc. 1996; 10(12):1158–1163 doi:10.1007/s004649900270 [CrossRef].
  75. Regan JJ, Aronoff RJ, Ohnmeiss DD, Sengupta DK. Laparoscopic approach to L4–L5 for interbody fusion using BAK cages: experience in the first 58 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(20):2171–2174 doi:10.1097/00007632-199910150-00018 [CrossRef].
  76. Zdeblick TA, David SM. A prospective comparison of surgical approach for anterior L4–L5 fusion: laparoscopic versus mini anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(20):2682–2687 doi:10.1097/00007632-200010150-00023 [CrossRef].
  77. Anand N, Baron EM, Khandehroo B, Kahwaty S. Long-term 2- to 5-year clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(18):1566–1575 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829cb67a [CrossRef].
  78. Schwab FJ, Lafage V, Farcy JP, Bridwell KH, Glassman S, Shainline MR. Predicting outcome and complications in the surgical treatment of adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(20):2243–2247 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817d1d4e [CrossRef].
  79. Raffo CS, Lauerman WC. Predicting morbidity and mortality of lumbar spine arthrodesis in patients in their ninth decade. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(1):99–103 doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000192678.25586.e5 [CrossRef].
  80. Weiss LE, Vaccaro AR, Scuderi G, McGuire M, Garfin SR. Pseudarthrosis after postoperative wound infection in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord. 1997; 10(6):482–487 doi:10.1097/00002517-199712000-00004 [CrossRef].
  81. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Baldus C, Blanke K. Major intraoperative neurological deficits in pediatric and adult spinal deformity patients: incidence and etiology at one institution. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998; 23(3):324–331 doi:10.1097/00007632-199802010-00008 [CrossRef].
  82. Sansur CA, Smith JS, Coe JD, et al. Scoliosis Research Society morbidity and mortality of adult scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(9):E593–E597 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182059bfd [CrossRef].
  83. Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS. Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28(3):E3 doi:10.3171/2009.12.FOCUS09254 [CrossRef].
  84. Norton RP, Bianco K, Lafage V, Schwab FJInternational Spine Study Group Foundation. Complications and intercenter variability of three-column resection osteotomies for spinal deformity surgery: a retrospective review of 423 patients. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2013; 4(2):157–159 doi:10.1055/s-0033-1357364 [CrossRef].
  85. Hassanzadeh H, Jain A, El Dafrawy MH, et al. Three-column osteotomies in the treatment of spinal deformity in adult patients 60 years old and older: outcome and complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(9):726–731 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827c2415 [CrossRef].
  86. Fisher RS, Raudzens P, Nunemacher M. Efficacy on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1995; 12(1):97–109.
  87. Slimp JC. Electrophysiologic intraoperative monitoring for spine procedures. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am. 2004; 15(1):85–105 doi:10.1016/S1047-9651(03)00106-2 [CrossRef].
  88. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Rhim S, Cheh G. Pseudarthrosis in long adult spinal deformity instrumentation and fusion to the sacrum: prevalence and risk factor analysis of 144 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(20):2329–2336 doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000238968.82799.d9 [CrossRef].
  89. Simmons ED Jr, Simmons EH. Spinal stenosis with scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992; 17(6)(suppl):S117–S120 doi:10.1097/00007632-199206001-00009 [CrossRef].
  90. Hansraj KK, O'Leary PF, Cammisa FP Jr, et al. Decompression, fusion, and instrumentation surgery for complex lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; 384:18–25 doi:10.1097/00003086-200103000-00004 [CrossRef].
  91. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Glassman SD, et al. Risk-benefit assessment of surgery for adult scoliosis: an analysis based on patient age. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(10):817–824 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e21783 [CrossRef].
  92. Li G, Passias P, Kozanek M, et al. Adult scoliosis over sixty-five years of age: outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment at a minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(20):2165–2170 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b3ff0c [CrossRef].
  93. Acosta FL Jr, McClendon J Jr, O'Shaughnessy BA, et al. Morbidity and mortality after spinal deformity surgery in patients 75 years and older: complications and predictive factors. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011; 15(6):667–674 doi:10.3171/2011.7.SPINE10640 [CrossRef].
  94. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Glassman SD, et al. Clinical and radiographic parameters that distinguish between the best and worst out-comes of scoliosis surgery for adults. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(2):402–410 doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2547-x [CrossRef].
  95. Dubousset J. Three-dimensional analysis of the scoliotic deformity. In: Weinstein SL, ed. The Pediatric Spine: Principles and Practice. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1994:479–496.
  96. Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Rinella A, Edwards C II, . Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(14):1643–1649 doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000169451.76359.49 [CrossRef].
  97. Watanabe K, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Kim YJ, Koester L, Hensley M. Proximal junctional vertebral fracture in adults after spinal deformity surgery using pedicle screw constructs: analysis of morphological features. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(2):138–145 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c8f35d [CrossRef].
  98. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after 3 different types of posterior segmental spinal instrumentation and fusions: incidence and risk factor analysis of 410 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(24):2731–2738 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a7ead [CrossRef].
  99. Yagi M, Akilah KB, Boachie-Adjei O. Incidence, risk factors and classification of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(1):E60–E68 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181eeaee2 [CrossRef].
  100. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Glattes CR, Rhim S, Cheh G. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(20):2179–2184 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817c0428 [CrossRef].
  101. Hart RA, McCarthy I, Ames CP, Shaffrey CI, Hamilton DK, Hostin R. Proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2013; 24(2):213–218 doi:10.1016/j.nec.2013.01.001 [CrossRef].
  102. Hostin R, McCarthy I, O'Brien M, et al. Incidence, mode, and location of acute proximal junctional failures after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(12):1008–1015 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318271319c [CrossRef].
Authors

The authors are from the Royal North Shore Hospital (EW, FA, LJO, RJG), St Leonards, and the University of Sydney (EW, LJO, RJG), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Eugene Wong, MBBS, MMed, Royal North Shore Hospital, 1 Reserve Rd, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia ( eugene.hl.wong@gmail.com).

Received: August 25, 2016
Accepted: January 09, 2017
Posted Online: June 09, 2017

10.3928/01477447-20170606-02

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents