<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">N.N. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">N.N. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вестник травматологии и ортопедии им. Н.Н. Приорова</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">0869-8678</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2658-6738</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Eco-Vector</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">47151</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.32414/0869-8678-2018-2-5-12</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Статьи</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">COMPARISON OF THE USE OF PEDICLE SUBTRACTION OSTEOTOMY (PSO) IN PRIMARY AND REVISION OPERATIONS</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>СРАВНЕНИЕ ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТИ ПРИМЕНЕНИЯ ПЕДИКУЛЯРНОЙ СУБТРАКЦИОННОЙ ОСТЕОТОМИИ ПРИ ПЕРВИЧНЫХ И РЕВИЗИОННЫХ ОПЕРАЦИЯХ</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Panteleev</surname><given-names>A. A.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Пантелеев</surname><given-names>А. А.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>apanteleyev@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Gorbatyuk</surname><given-names>D. S.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Горбатюк</surname><given-names>Д. С.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>info@eco-vector.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Sazhnev</surname><given-names>M. L.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Сажнев</surname><given-names>М. Л.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>info@eco-vector.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Kaz’min</surname><given-names>A. I.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Казьмин</surname><given-names>А. И.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>info@eco-vector.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Pereverzev</surname><given-names>V. S.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Переверзев</surname><given-names>В. С.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>info@eco-vector.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Kolesov</surname><given-names>S. V.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Колесов</surname><given-names>С. В.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>info@eco-vector.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр травматологии и ортопедии им. Н.Н. Приорова» Минздрава России</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2018-06-15" publication-format="electronic"><day>15</day><month>06</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>25</volume><issue>2</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">VOL 0, NO2 (2018)</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">ТОМ 0, №2 (2018)</issue-title><fpage>5</fpage><lpage>12</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2020-10-19"><day>19</day><month>10</month><year>2020</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2018, Eco-Vector</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2018, ООО "Эко-Вектор"</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2018</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Eco-Vector</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">ООО "Эко-Вектор"</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" start_date="2021-01-29"/></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.eco-vector.com/0869-8678/article/view/47151">https://journals.eco-vector.com/0869-8678/article/view/47151</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Purpose of study: to evaluate clinical and roentgenologic results of the use of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) in primary and revision operations to determine the feasibility of radical spinal sagittal imbalance correction at primary surgical intervention.Patients and methods. Retrospective review of 42 patients (30 men and 12 women, mean age — 58.5 years) with rigid spinal deformities who underwent PSO was performed. Revision interventions (group R) were performed in 23 cases, primary (group P) — in 19 cases. The comparative analysis of spino-pelvic parameters and global spine balance, demographic indices, volume of intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgical intervention, complications in the late postoperative period and quality-of-life indices by SRS-22 and ODI scores was performed. Results. Minimum follow up period was 12 months. Osteotomy was more often performed at L3 level. No differences in the extent of fixation, duration of surgical intervention and degree of segmental correction were detected. The average blood loss was significantly lower in group P (p&lt;0.05). Analysis of the late postoperative period changes in roentgenologic parameters showed statistically significant differences for the lumbar lordosis index as well as inconsistency between the lumbar lordosis and pelvic index that were better in group P. Quality of life increased significantly in both groups with the only statistically significant difference in ODI that was better in group P. Serious complications were observed in 47.8 and 38.6% of cases in group R and group P, respectively (p&lt;0.05). Revision interventions were required in 26.1% of cases in group R and in 15.8% — in group P. Conclusion. In primary surgical interventions use of PSO technique enables to correct global spinal sagittal balance more effectively. Its use in primary interventions ensures lower volume of intraoperative blood loss as well as lower risk of pseudarthrosis formation and neurologic disorders development.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Цель исследования: оценить клинические и рентгенологические результаты применения педикулярной субтракционной остеотомии (PSO) при первичных и ревизионных операциях для определения целесообразности проведения радикальной коррекции сагиттального дисбаланса позвоночника при первом оперативном вмешательстве.Пациенты и методы. Проведен ретроспективный анализ 42 пациентов (30 мужчин и 12 женщин, средний возраст 58,5 лет) с ригидными деформациями позвоночника, перенесших операцию PSO. Ревизионные вмешательства (группа Р) были выполнены в 23 наблюдениях, первичные (группа П) — в 19. Проводили сравнительный анализ позвоночно-тазовых параметров и глобального сагиттального баланса, демографических показателей, объема интраоперационной кровопотери, продолжительности операции, осложнений в отдаленном послеоперационном периоде, показателей качества жизни пациентов по визуально-аналоговой шкале, шкалам SRS-22 и ODI.Результаты. Минимальный срок наблюдения составил 12 мес. Наиболее частым уровнем остеотомии был L3. Не было выявлено различий в протяженности фиксации, продолжительности операции, степени сегментарной коррекции. При этом средний объем кровопотери был статистически значимо ниже в группе П (p&lt;0,05). При анализе изменений рентгенологических параметров в отдаленном послеоперационном периоде статистически значимые различия были установлены для показателей поясничного лордоза и несоответствия поясничного лордоза и тазового индекса, которые были лучше в группе П. В обеих группах констатировали значительное улучшение качества жизни после операции, при этом статистически значимые различия касались только показателя ODI с преимуществом в группе П. Серьезные осложнения констатировали в 47,8 и 31,6% наблюдений в группе Р и группе П соответственно (p&lt;0,05). Ревизионные вмешательства понадобились в 26,1% случаев в группе Р и в 15,8% — в группе П. Заключение. Применение методики PSO при первичных оперативных вмешательствах позволяет более эффективно корригировать глобальный сагиттальный баланс позвоночника за счет пояснично-крестцового отдела. В то же время ее применение при первичных вмешательствах сопряжено с меньшим объемом интраоперационной кровопотери и меньшими рисками формирования псевдоартроза и развития неврологических осложнений.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>pedicle subtraction osteotomy</kwd><kwd>rigid spinal deformities</kwd><kwd>sagittal balance</kwd><kwd>spino-pelvic parameters</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>педикулярная субтракционная остеотомия</kwd><kwd>ригидные деформации позвоночника</kwd><kwd>сагиттальный баланс</kwd><kwd>позвоночно-тазовые параметры</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Bridwell K.H., Baldus C., Berven S. et al. Changes in radiographic and clinical outcomes with primary treatment adult spinal deformity surgeries from two years to threeto five-years follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35 (20): 1849-54. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181efa06a.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Li G., Passias P., Kozanek M. et al. Adult scoliosis in patients 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): 2165-70. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b3ff0c.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Daubs M.D., Lenke L.G., Cheh G. et al. Adult spinal deformity surgery: Complications and outcomes in patients over age 60. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32 (20): 2238-44. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814cf24a.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Drazin D., Shirzadi A., Rosner J. et al. Complications and outcomes after spinal deformity surgery in the elderly: review of the existing literature and future directions. Neurosurg. Focus. 2011; 31 (4): E3. doi: 10.3171/2011.7.FOCUS11145.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Bridwell K.H., Lewis S.J., Lenke L.G. et al. Pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the treatment of fixed sagittal imbalance. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2003; 85-A (3): 454-63.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Thomasen E. Vertebral osteotomy for correction of kyphosis in ankylosing spondylitis. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1985; (194): 142-52.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Gupta M.C., Kebaish K., Blondel B., Klineberg E. Spinal osteotomies for rigid deformities. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2013; 24 (2): 203-11. doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2012.12.001.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Diebo B., Liu S., Lafage V., Schwab F. Osteotomies in the treatment of spinal deformities: Indications, classification, and surgical planning. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2014; 24 Suppl 1: S11-20. doi: 10.1007/s00590-0141471-7.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Van Royen B.J., Gast A.D. Lumbar osteotomy for correction of thoracolumbar kyphotic deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. A structured review of three methods of treatment. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 1999; 58 (7): 399-406.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Hassanzadeh H., Jain A., El Dafrawy M.H. et al. Threecolumn osteotomies in the treatment of spinal deformity in adult patients 60 years old and older. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38 (9): 726-31. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827c2415.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Hedlund R. Pedicle subtraction osteotomy in flat back syndrome 38 years after Harrington instrumentation for AIS. Eur. Spine J. 2012; 21 (3): 563-5.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Bridwell K.H., Lewis S.J., Edwards C. et al. Complications and outcomes of pedicle subtraction osteotomies for fixed sagittal imbalance. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28 (18): 2093-101. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000090891.60232.70.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Buchowski J.M., Bridwell K.H., Lenke L.G. et al. Neurologic complications of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a 10-year assessment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32 (20): 2245-52. doi: 10.1097/ BRS.0b013e31814b2d52.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Schwab F.J., Hawkinson N., Lafage V. et al. Risk factors for major peri-operative complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: A multi-center review of 953 consecutive patients. Eur. Spine J. 2012; 21 (12): 2603-10. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2370-4.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Cho S.K., Bridwell K.H., Lenke L.G. et al. Major complications in revision adult deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37 (6): 489-500. doi: 10.1097/ BRS.0b013e3182217ab5.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Pichelmann M.A., Lenke L.G., Bridwell K.H. et al. Revision rates following primary adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35 (2): 219-26. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c91180.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Diebo B.G., Passias P.G., Marascalchi B.J. et al. Primary versus revision surgery in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a nationwide study on 10,912 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40 (21): 1674-80. doi: 10.1097/ BRS.0000000000001114.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Cho S.K., Bridwell K.H., Lenke L.G. et al. Comparative analysis of clinical outcome and complications in primary versus revision adult scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37 (5): 393-401. doi: 10.1097/ BRS.0b013e31821f0126.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Chang M.S., Chang Y.H., Revella J., Crandall D.G. Revision spinal fusion in patients older than 75: Is it worth the risks? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39 (1): E35-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000067.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Kurtz S.M., Lau E., Ong K. et al. Infection risk for primary and revision instrumented lumbar spine fusion in the Medicare population. J. Neurosurg. Spine. 2012; 17 (4): 342-7. doi: 10.3171/2012.7.SPINE12203.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Schwender J.D., Casnellie M.T., Perra J.H. et al. Perioperative complications in revision anterior lumbar spine surgery: incidence and risk factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34 (1): 87-90. doi: 10.1097/ BRS.0b013e3181918ad0.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Fu L., Chang M.S., Crandall D.G., Revella J. Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes and complications in patients with degenerative scoliosis undergoing primary versus revision surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39 (10): 805-11. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000283.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Lafage V., Schwab F., Skalli W. et al. Standing balance and sagittal plane spinal deformity: analysis of spinopelvic and gravity line parameters. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33 (14): 1572-8. doi: 0.1097/BRS.0b013e31817886a2.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Merrill R.K., Kim J.S., Leven D.M. et al. Beyond pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch: the importance of assessing the entire spine to achieve global sagittal alignment. Global Spine J. 2017; 7 (6): 536-42. doi: 10.1177/2192568217699405.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Gupta M.C., Ferrero E., Mundis G. et al.; International Spine Study Group. Pedicle subtraction osteotomy in the revision versus primary adult spinal deformity patient: is there a difference in correction and complications? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40 (22): E1169-75. doi: 10.1097/ BRS.0000000000001107.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>Lau D., Chan A.K., Deverin V., Ames C.P. Does prior spine surgery or instrumentation affect surgical outcomes following 3-column osteotomy for correction of thoracolumbar deformities? Neurosurg. Focus. 2017; 43 (6): E8. doi: 10.3171/2017.8.FOCUS17460.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>Bridwell K.H. Decision making regarding Smith-Petersen vs. pedicle subtraction osteotomy vs. vertebral column resection for spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31 (19 Suppl): S171-8. doi: 10.1097/01. brs.0000231963.72810.38.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>Schwab F.J., Patel A., Shaffrey C.I. et al. Sagittal realignment failures following pedicle subtraction osteotomy surgery: are we doing enough?: Clinical article. J. Neurosurg. Spine. 2012; 16 (6): 539-46. doi: 10.3171/2012.2.SPINE11120.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29.</label><mixed-citation>Cho K.J., Bridwell K.H., Lenke L.G. et al. Comparison of Smith-Petersenversuspediclesubtractionosteotomyfor the correction of fixed sagittal imbalance. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30 (18): 2030-7.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation>Dickson D.D., Lenke L.G., Bridwell K.H., Koester L.A. Risk factors for and assessment of symptomatic pseudarthrosis after lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39 (15): 1190-5. doi: 10.1097/ BRS.0000000000000380.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
