Impact of preoperative age-adjusted sagittal imbalance on radiographic and clinical outcomes following 1-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis
Authors: Maayan Omri , Subramanian Tejas , Samuel Andre M. , Shahi Pratyush , Vaishnav Avani S. , Asada Tomoyuki , Amen Troy B. , Tuma Olivia C. , Korsun Maximilian K. , Singh Nishtha , Pajak Anthony , Singh Sumedha , Araghi Kasra , Sheha Evan D. , Dowdell James E. , Iyer Sravisht , Qureshi Sheeraz A. 
Published: August 2024

OBJECTIVE
Prior studies investigating the use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions and concomitant sagittal deformity have not stratified patients by preoperative pelvic incidence (PI)–lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, which is the earliest parameter to deteriorate in mild sagittal deformity. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine the impact of preoperative PI-LL mismatch on clinical outcomes and sagittal balance restoration among patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).

METHODS
Consecutive adult patients undergoing primary 1-level MI-TLIF between April 2017 and April 2022 for DS with ≥ 6 months radiographic follow-up were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System at preoperative, early postoperative (< 6 months), and late postoperative (≥ 6 months) time points. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMs was also evaluated. Radiographic parameters included PI, LL, pelvic tilt (PT), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Patients were categorized into balanced and unbalanced groups based on preoperative PI-LL mismatch according to age-adjusted alignment goals. Changes in radiographic parameters and PROMs were evaluated.

RESULTS
Eighty patients were included (L4–5 82.5%, grade I spondylolisthesis 82.5%, unbalanced 58.8%). Mean clinical and radiographic follow-up were 17.0 and 8.3 months, respectively. The average preoperative PI-LL was 18.8° in the unbalanced group and −3.3° in the balanced group. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch had significantly worse preoperative PT (26.2° vs 16.4°, p < 0.001) and SVA (53.2 vs 9.0 mm, p = 0.001) compared with balanced patients. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch also showed significantly worse PI-LL (16.0° vs 0.54°, p < 0.001), PT (25.9° vs 18.7°, p < 0.001), and SVA (49.4 vs 22.8 mm, p = 0.013) at long-term follow-up. No significant radiographic improvement was observed among unbalanced patients. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05) except for SF-12 mental component score. Achievement of MCID for VAS back score was significantly greater among patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch (85.7% vs 65.5%, p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS
Although 1-level MI-TLIF did not restore sagittal alignment in patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch, patients presenting with DS can expect significant improvement in PROMs following 1-level MI-TLIF regardless of preoperative alignment or extent of correction. Thus, attaining good clinical outcomes in patients with mild sagittal imbalance may not require addressing imbalance directly.