Maintaining stability at the lumbosacral-pelvic region in adult spinal deformity surgery without sacroiliac joint fusion: are 4 pelvic screws superior to 2 pelvic screws?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare a multiple pelvic screw fixation strategy (dual bilateral 4 pelvic screw fixation [4PvS]) with the use of single bilateral 2 pelvic screw fixation (2PvS), with the aim of addressing lumbosacral junction stability.

METHODS

This analysis is a single-center, retrospective review of ASD patients treated between 2015 and 2021. All patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up and spinal fusion to the sacrum without sacroiliac fusion and met at least one radiographic and procedural criterion: pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis ≥ 20°, T1 pelvic angle ≥ 20°, sagittal vertical axis ≥ 7.5 cm, scoliosis ≥ 50°, three-column osteotomy, or spinal fusion of ≥ 8 levels. Two sacropelvic fixation methods were compared: 4PvS versus 2PvS. Primary outcomes included spinal implant-related reoperation and screw breakage, while secondary outcomes included reoperation for symptomatic pelvic screws, screw loosening or bending, L5-S1 pseudarthrosis, and patient-reported outcomes. Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to minimize selection bias and estimate causal treatment effects. Clinical outcomes were assessed using conditional multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

In this study of 406 patients (67.98% female, mean age 64.48 years), 349 patients (85.96%) received 2PvS and 57 (14.04%) received 4PvS. Age (OR 1.081, 95% CI 1.027-1.145) and total number of osteotomies (OR 1.180, 95% CI 1.048-1.355) emerged as independent predictors of receiving the 4PvS technique. In unmatched cohorts (n = 406), 2-year implant-related reoperation rates (p = 0.1896) and pelvic screw breakage rates (p = 0.2498) were not significantly different between groups. However, in the 4:1 propensity score-matched cohort, the 2-year reoperation rate (10.53% for 2PvS vs 3.51% for 4PvS; OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.10-9.74 [p = 0.0312]) and the pelvic screw breakage rate (9.21% for 2PvS vs 3.51% for 4PvS; OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.08-7.63 [p = 0.0349]) were significantly higher among the 2PvS groups. The IPTW analysis confirmed these findings, with reoperation rates of 10.45% for 2PvS and 1.18% for 4PvS (p = 0.0244) and pelvic screw breakage rates of 8.72% and 1.18%, respectively (p = 0.0477). A safety assessment revealed comparable operative times and intra- and perioperative complications between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent 4PvS demonstrated significantly lower 2-year implant-related reoperation and pelvic screw breakage rates compared with 2PvS, with no differences in intraoperative or perioperative complications.