Surgical technique demonstrates improved sagittal alignment outcomes in L5 PSOs, highlighting its safety and efficacy implications.
Purpose To introduce and report early outcomes of an innovative surgical strategy to stabilize L5 PSOs with minimum 6 rods utilizing bilateral dual pelvic fixation consisting of both traditional iliac screws and osseointegrative S2AI screws. Methods Adult patients at a single institution who underwent a L5 PSO reconstructed with a minimum of 6 rods using dual pelvic fixation were reviewed. Accompanying a description of the surgical technique is patient demographics, perioperative sagittal radiographic alignment parameters, and early surgical and clinical outcomes, including incidences of mechanical complications. Results Seven patients (4 females; average age 68 ± 8 years) met inclusion criteria. In addition to the L5 PSO, operative strategies were mixed [86% revisions, 86% lower thoracic UIV, 86% interbodies (ALIF, TLIF, DLIF) at either L3-4, L4-5, and/or L5-S1]. Average L5 PSO angle was 34.1 0 ± 3.2 0 (range, 30–39 0 ), which resulted in significant improvements in all regional lumbopelvic and global sagittal alignment parameters. Final average post-operative regional sagittal alignments were within acceptable ranges (PT: 13.7 0 ; L4-S1 lordosis: 45.9 0 ; L1-S1 lordosis: 61.1 0 ; PI-LL mismatch: 6.4 0 ) as were global alignment metrics (C7-S1 SVA: 1.5; L1PA: 4.3 0 ; T4PA: 7.1 0 ; T4-L1 PA mismatch: 2.9 0 ). At average follow-up of 17 months, no patients had rod breakages or pelvic screw failures. One patient required revision surgery to address proximal junctional kyphosis/failure secondary to overcorrection. Conclusions Bilateral dual pelvic fixation consisting of traditional iliac screws and osseointegrative S2AI screws to facilitate creation of “super” multi-rod constructs (minimum 6 rods) across L5 PSOs is a safe surgical strategy with promising early clinical results. Larger cohorts from multiple centers with longer follow-up will aid in determining its long-term efficacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brumm et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: