PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Asghar, Jahangir
AU  - Patel, Ashvin I.
AU  - Osorio, Joseph A.
AU  - Smith, Justin S.
AU  - Small, John
AU  - Mullin, Jeffrey P.
AU  - Desai, Atman
AU  - Temple-Wong, Michele
AU  - Nicolau, Rodrigo J.
TI  - Mismatch Between Pelvic Incidence and Lumbar Lordosis After Personalized Interbody Fusion: The Importance of Preoperative Planning and Alignment in Degenerative Spine Diseases
AID  - 10.14444/8638
DP  - 2024 Aug 01
TA  - International Journal of Spine Surgery
PG  - S24--S31
VI  - 18
IP  - S1
4099  - https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/18/S1/S24.short
4100  - https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/18/S1/S24.full
SO  - Int J Spine Surg2024 Aug 01; 18
AB  - Background Emerging data have highlighted the significance of planning and aligning total and segmental lumbar lordosis with pelvic morphology when performing short-segment fusion with the goal of reducing the risk of adjacent segment disease while also decreasing spine-related disability. This study evaluates the impact of personalized interbody implants in restoring pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis (PI−LL) mismatch compared with a similar study using stock interbody implants.Methods This multicenter retrospective analysis assessed radiographic pre- and postoperative spinopelvic alignment (PI−LL) in patients who underwent 1- or 2-level lumbar fusions with personalized interbody implants for degenerative (nondeformity) indications. The aim was to assess the incidence of malalignment (PI−LL ≥ 10°) both before and after fusion surgery and to determine the rate of alignment preservation and/or correction in this population.Results There were 135 patients included in this study. Of 83 patients who were aligned preoperatively, alignment was preserved in 76 (91.6%) and worsened in 7 (8.4%). Among the 52 preoperatively malaligned patients, alignment was restored in 23 (44.2%), and 29 (55.8%) were not fully corrected. Among patients who were preoperatively aligned, there was no statistically significant difference in either the “preserved” or “worsened” groups between stock devices and personalized interbody devices. In contrast, among patients who were preoperatively malaligned, there was a statistically significant increase in the “restored” group (P = 0.046) and a statistically significant decrease in the “worsened” groups in patients with personalized interbodies compared with historical stock device data (P < 0.05).Conclusions Compared with a historical cohort with stock implants, personalized interbody implants in short-segment fusions have shown a statistically significant improvement in restoring patients to normative PI−LL. Using 3-dimensional preoperative planning combined with personalized implants provides an important tool for planning and achieving improvement in spinopelvic parameters.Level of Evidence 3.