How does the correction in lumbar lordosis affect the spinopelvic realignments in degenerative lumbar scoliosis underwent scoliosis surgery?

Table 2 Comparisons of all of the radiographic parameters and HRQOL data before and after surgery

Variables	Pre-operation	Post-operation	Final follow-up	P
TK	16.33 ± 12.42	21.61 ± 9.77	28.78 ± 11.46	< 0.001
LL	23.18 ± 18.36	38.60 ± 12.47	40.21 ± 11.70	< 0.001
SS	23.47 ± 12.03	30.04 ± 10.48	28.86 ± 11.82	< 0.001
PT	23.31 ± 11.07	16.83 ± 9.20	19.32 ± 10.21	< 0.001
PI	46.91 ± 11.47	46.98 ± 11.72	47.07 ± 11.20	0.901
SAA	44.42 ± 8.20	38.45 ± 7.57	35.56 ± 8.27	< 0.001
PFA	198.58 ± 10.67	190.99 ± 9.79	194.12 ± 12.01	< 0.001
PI–LL	23.72 ± 18.12	8.38 ± 12.57	9.21 ± 13.72	< 0.001
SVA	44.73 ± 49.94	11.16 ± 33.13	22.63 ± 40.17	< 0.001
TPA	21.69 ± 11.92	14.39 ± 9.03	16.21 ± 10.39	< 0.001
ODI	47.80 ± 15.67	21.10 ± 13.20	30.76 ± 14.88	< 0.001
PCS	29.9 ± 8.27	42.80 ± 9.81	36.23 ± 8.88	< 0.001
MCS	50.10 ± 9.93	54.88 ± 10.02	48.21 ± 8.95	< 0.001

The values were given as the mean and the standard deviation.
TK indicates thoracic kyphosis, SS Sacral slope, PT Pelvic tilt, TPA T1 pelvic angle, SVA Sagittal vertical axis, PI–LL Mismatch pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis, SAA Sagittal acetabular anteversion, PFA Pelvic femur angle, HRQOL Health-related questionnaires of life, ODI Oswestry disability index, PCS Physical component score of SF-36, MCS Mental component score of SF-36

ISSN: 2047-783X