Faculty Bibliography

Introduction: Cervical deformity (CD) correction has becomeincreasingly complex and challenging. Osteotomies are commonlyperformed to correct sagittal malalignment, however the risks andbenefits of performing a major osteotomy for cervical deformitycorrection have been understudied. The purpose of this study was toinvestigate the risks and benefits of performing a major osteotomy forCD correction.Methods: Retrospective review of a multicenter prospective CDdatabase. CD was defined as at least one of the following: C2-C7Cobb [10, CL [10, cSVA [4 cm, CBVA [25. Patientsstratified based on having a major osteotomy (MAJ-pedicle subtraction osteotomy or vertebral column resection) or minor (MIN).Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed controlling forbaseline cSVA and T1S. Flexibility of the deformity was assessedusing C2-C7 lordosis and T1S change greater than 10 betweenflexion and extension. Independent t-tests and Chi Squared tests wereused to assess differences between MAJ and MIN.Results: 89 CD patients were included (62 years, 65%F). 19 (21.3%)CD patients underwent a MAJ osteotomy. MAJ and MIN had nodifferences in any baseline radiographic parameters, with the exception of cSVA (MAJ: 59.3 mm, MIN: 41.9 mm, p = 0.007). AfterPSM for cSVA, 38 patients were included (60 years, 60%F). 19(21.3%) CD patients underwent a MAJ osteotomy (14 pedicle subtraction osteotomy, 5 vertebral column resection). MAJ patientsunderwent more invasive surgeries, with more levels fused (10.6 vs7.1, p <0.001) and blood loss (1442 cc vs 802 cc, p = 0.036),despite similar operative time and intra-and post-operative complication rates as MIN patients. At 3 M post-op, MAJ and MIN patientshad similar NDI, mJOA, and EQ5D scores, however by 6M and 1Ypost-op MAJ patients reached MCID for NDI less than MIN patients(10.5 vs 57.9%, p = 0.003). Comparing patients with fixed versusnon-fixed CL, MAJ patients with non-fixed lordosis trended towardsimprovement in NDI (p = 0.30) but also trended towards highercomplication (78 vs 43%, p = 0.182) and reoperation rates (44 vs 0%,p = 0.069) than fixed deformities. Rigid deformities trended towardsimprovement in TS-CL (43% improve vs 33%, p = 0.54) and cSVA(14 vs 0%, p = 0.49) for MAJ patients and lower complication rate(MIN most commonly had DJK and reoperation) (43 vs 100%,p = 0.09).Conclusions: Cervical deformity patients who underwent a majorosteotomy had similar clinical outcomes at 3-months but worseclinical outcomes at 6-months and 1-year, assessed by NDI and EQ-5D, as compared with patients with minor osteotomies, in partbecause patients undergoing major osteotomies have more severedeformities and have more prolonged recovery kinetics. Patients withflexible curves showed similar alignment and clinical outcomes butincreased complication risk when undergoing a major osteotomy.Contrarily, patients with rigid deformities who underwent a majorosteotomy trended towards radiographic and clinical improvementand lower rates of DJK and reoperation

Background: Recent studies suggest non-routine discharge, includingdischarge to inpatient rehab and skilled nursing facilities, is associatedwith increased cost of care. Given the rising prevalence of cervicaldeformity (CD)-corrective surgery and the necessity of value-basedhealthcare, it is important to identify indicators for non-routine discharge in surgical CD patients.Study Design: Retrospective review of prospective, multicenter CDdatabase.Methods: Included: Surgical CD patients (C2-C7 Cobb [10,CL [10, cSVA [4 cm, or CBVA [25) [18 years with discharge and baseline (BL) radiographic data. Non-routine dischargedefined: inpatient rehab or skilled nursing facility. ConditionalInference Decision Trees identified predictors of non-routine discharge, and cut-off points at which predictors have a global effect.A Conditional Variable Importance Table used non-replacementsampling set of 3000 Conditional Inference trees to identify influential patient/surgical factors. Binary logistic regression indicated effectsize of influential factors at significant cut-off points. Means comparison testing assessed the relationship between non-routinedischarge and reop/HRQL outcomes.Results: Included: 138 patients (61 +/- 10 years, 63%F) undergoingCD-corrective surgery (8.2 +/- 4.6 levels; 49% posterior-onlyapproach, 16% anterior-only, 35% combined). 29% of patientsexperienced non-routine discharge (21% inpatient rehab, 8% SNF).BL cervical and upper-cervical malalignment was the strongest predictor of non-routine discharge: [1] C1 slope [14 (OR:8.4 [95%CI:3.1-22.7]), [3] C2 slope [57 (OR: 7.0 [2.6-18.3]), [4] TSCL [57 (OR: 5.9 [2.2-15.9]), [14] C0 slope[-0.66 (OR: 4.2[1.9-9.3]), [15] cSVA [40 mm (OR: 4.6 [2.0-10.9]), [18] McGregor's slope [1.9 (OR: 4.1 [1.7-9.9]). Patient-related predictors ofnon-routine discharge were [2] BL gait impairment (OR: 5.29[2.3-12.4]), [8] age [59 years (OR: 4.3 [1.6-11.1]), [10] apex of CDprimary driver [C7 (OR: 3.9[1.8-8.6]), and [13] admission tosurgical ICU (OR: 5.4 [1.9-14.8]). Experiencing 2 or more complications was predictive of non-routine discharge (OR: 4.2 [1.9-9.2]),but the only specific complications predictive of non-routone discharge were EBL [900 cc (OR: 3.6 [1.7-7.7]) and presence of anyneuro complication (OR: 2.8 [1.8-8.4]). The only surgical predictor ofnon-home discharge was [12] fusion[8 levels (OR: 4.0 [1.8-9.0]).LOS [6 days was also predictive of non-routone discharge (OR: 4.0[1.8-8.9]). There was no relationship between non-routine dischargeand reop within 3 months (P = 0.249), 6 months (P = 0.793), or1 year (P = 0.814) of index procedure. Despite no differences in BLEQ-5D (P = 0.946), non-routine patients had inferior 1-year postopEQ-5D scores (non-routine: 0.75, home: 0.79, P = 0.044).Conclusions: Preop cervical malalignment was a top predictor ofnon-routine discharge in surgical CD patients. Age, driver of deformity, and [8 level fusion also predicted non-routine discharge, andshould be taken into account to improve resource allocation andpatient counseling

KIE: Three cases are presented in which medical students represent themselves as physicians in a teaching hospital. They justify deceiving patients about their status for different reasons: self-concern for career, necessity for clinical training, and the belief that the truth could cause psychological stress in the patient. The author considers the ethical implications of this practice from the standpoint of the physician's moral obligations and the physician patient relationship. She suggests that the initial act of the student posing as a physician is more serious and of greater consequence for future ethical decisions than is currently acknowledged.