Abstract:Introduction: Whether a combined anterior–posterior (AP) approach offers additional benefits over the posterior-only (P) approach in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery remains unknown. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we compared the combined AP vs. the P-only approach in: (1) preoperative/perioperative variables, (2) radiographic measurements, and (3) postoperative outcomes. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. The primary exposure was the operative approach: a combined AP approach or P alone. Postoperative outcomes included mechanical complications, reoperation, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), defined as 30% of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Multivariable linear regression was controlled for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Results: Among 238 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 34 (14.3%) patients underwent the AP approach and 204 (85.7%) underwent the P-only approach. The AP group consisted mostly of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5/S1 (73.5%) and/or L4/L5 (38.0%). Preoperatively, the AP group had more previous fusions (64.7% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001), higher pelvic tilt (PT) (29.6 ± 11.6° vs. 24.6 ± 11.4°, p = 0.037), higher T1 pelvic angle (T1PA) (31.8 ± 12.7° vs. 24.0 ± 13.9°, p = 0.003), less L1-S1 lordosis (−14.7 ± 28.4° vs. −24.3 ± 33.4°, p < 0.039), less L4-S1 lordosis (−25.4 ± 14.7° vs. 31.6 ± 15.5°, p = 0.042), and higher sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (102.6 ± 51.9 vs. 66.4 ± 71.2 mm, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, the AP approach had longer operative time (553.9 ± 177.4 vs. 397.4 ± 129.0 min, p < 0.001), more interbodies placed (100% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001), and longer length of stay (8.4 ± 10.7 vs. 7.0 ± 9.6 days, p = 0.026). Radiographically, the AP group had more improvement in T1PA (13.4 ± 8.7° vs. 9.5 ± 8.6°, p = 0.005), L1-S1 lordosis (−14.3 ± 25.6° vs. −3.2 ± 20.2°, p < 0.001), L4-S1 lordosis (−4.7 ± 16.4° vs. 3.2 ± 13.7°, p = 0.008), and SVA (65.3 ± 44.8 vs. 44.8 ± 47.7 mm, p = 0.007). These outcomes remained statistically significant in the multivariable analysis controlling for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Postoperatively, no significant differences were found in mechanical complications, reoperations, or MCID of PROMs. Conclusion: Preoperatively, patients undergoing the combined anterior–posterior approach had higher PT, T1PA, and SVA and lower L1-S1 and L4-S1 lordosis than the posterior-only approach. Despite increased operative time and length of stay, the anterior–posterior approach provided greater sagittal correction without any difference in mechanical complications or PROMs.

Surgical sequence in anterior column realignment with posterior osteotomy is important for degree of adult spinal deformity correction: advantages and indications for posterior to anterior sequence

The comprehensive anatomical spinal osteotomy and anterior column realignment classification

Anterior Column Realignment Through Open Pre-posterior Release-Anterior-Posterior Fusion Versus Hybrid Minimally Invasive-Anterior-Posterior Fusion for Dynamic Sagittal Imbalance of the Spine

Which Strategy Is Superior?

Reassessment System and Staged Surgical Strategy with Minimally Invasive Techniques for Treatment of Severe Adult Spinal Deformities

Sequential Correction Technique to Avoid Postoperative Global Coronal Decompensation in Rigid Adult Spinal Deformity: a Technical Note and Preliminary Results

Radiographic Outcomes and Complications of Anterior Column Realignment (ACR): A Systematic Review

Combined anterior-posterior versus posterior only approach for surgical management of adult spinal deformity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Correlation between Acetabular Anteversion with a False-Profile View and Spinopelvic Parameters in Adult Spinal Deformity after Long-Segment Corrective Spinal Surgery

Incidence and Risk Factors of Proximal Junctional Complications and Rod Fractures After Long-Segment Fusion Surgery With Anterior Column Realignment for Adult Spinal Deformity: A Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

Incidence and Risk Factors for Mechanical Failure after Anterior Column Realignment in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery

Surgical Strategy and Clinical Outcomes in Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis with Type C Coronal Imbalance

Severe (>100 Degrees) Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis – A Comparison of Surgical Approaches

Lumbar Lordosis Redistribution and Segmental Correction in Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD)

Optimal Correction of Adult Spinal Deformities Requires Restoration of Distal Lumbar Lordosis

Anterior or Posterior Release for Severe Rigid Scoliosis: Which is Safer and More Effective?

Anterior versus posterior surgery for osteoporotic vertebral collapse with neurological deficit in the thoracolumbar spine

Restoring L4-S1 Lordosis Shape in Severe Sagittal Deformity: Impact of Correction Techniques on Alignment and Complication Profile

Cosmetic and Radiological Outcome after Surgical Treatment in Lenke 5C Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients: A Comparison of Anterior Versus Posterior Approaches

Comparative analysis of changes in spinal dimensions following different correction methods in adult spinal deformity surgery

Comparison Of Posterior Vertebral Column Resection And Anterior Corpectomy And Instrumentation For Correcting Late Post-Traumatic Thoracolumbar Kyphosis