• A F Guanciale, J M Dinsay, and R G Watkins.
• Kerlan Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic, Los Angeles, California, USA.
• Spine. 1996 Apr 15;21(8):964-9.

Study DesignOne hundred one patients undergoing spine surgery for degenerative conditions were entered into a prospective radiographic evaluation of changes in lumbar lordosis as affected by positioning on two different operative tables.ObjectivesThe hypothesis of the present study is twofold: 1) the positioning of patients on specific types of operative tables may affect significantly the overall degree of lumbar lordosis obtainable, and 2) certain operative positioning may more accurately reproduce physiologic standing lateral lumbar lordosis.Summary Of Background DataIn the management of degenerative and post-traumatic spinal deformities, lumbar fusion using posterior instrumentation permits more accurate and physiologic lordotic positioning of the involved fusion segments of the lumbar spine. However, various types of operating frames are available for use in this type of surgery, and despite the overall importance of correct lordotic positioning, there is some question as to what effect on positioning, as measured in degrees of lumbar lordosis, a particular frame might have.MethodsTotal, multisegmental, and unisegmental Cobb angle measurements of preoperative standing lateral radiographs and intraoperative lateral radiographs after positioning on respective operative tables were determined. Fifty-one patients were positioned on an Andrews-type table, and 50 patients were positioned on the four-poster-type frame. Statistical comparison using analysis of variance testing of changes in lordosis before and after surgery between study groups was evaluated.ResultsLumbar lordosis measured from L1 to S1 with standing lateral radiographs showed a combined mean preoperative measurement of 45.18 degrees, with no statistical significance between groups. In comparison, there was a statistically significant difference between intraoperative measurements from L1 to S1 on the Andrews table versus the four-poster frame, revealing an average of 32.81 degrees versus 47.71 degrees, respectively (P < 0.005). Multisegmental lordosis measurement from L2 to S1 displayed statistical significance between groups, with a combined preoperative standing lateral radiograph average of 43.32 degrees, and intraoperative values of 31.28 degrees on the Andrews table versus 45.34 degrees on the four-poster frame (P < 0.005). Multisegmental lordosis measurements from L4 to S1 displayed statistical significance between groups, with a combined preoperative standing lateral radiograph average of 31.40 degrees and intraoperative values of 23.14 degrees on the Andrews table versus 32.94 degrees on the four-poster frame (P < 0.005). Segmental lordosis at L5-S1 was less dependent on frame type, with a combined preoperative standing lateral radiograph average of 20.53 degrees and intraoperative measurements of 20.06 degrees on the Andrews table versus 21.02 degrees on the four-poster frame (P < 0.43).ConclusionResults from the present study display a statistically significant difference between multisegmental and total lumbar lordosis, depending on the type of operative table used in patient positioning. Segmental lordosis at L5-S1 depended less on frame type. This table-dependent positional change in lumbar lordosis could be incorporated easily into a lumbar fusion procedure, especially when supplemented with instrumentation, affecting the permanent overall degree of lordosis. These results suggest that a more physiologic degree of lumbar lordosis is obtained accurately with use of an operative table similar to the four-poster frame.

16 keywords...

hide…