Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of an adult deformity database. OBJECTIVE:To identify Pelvic Incidence (PI) and age-appropriate physical function alignment targets using a component angle of T1- Pelvic Angle (TPA) within the fusion to define correction and their relationship to proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and clinical outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:In preoperative planning, a patient's PI is often utilized to determine alignment target. In a trend toward more patient specific planning, age-specific alignment has been shown to reduce the risk of mechanical failures. PI and age have not been analyzed with respect to defining a functional alignment. METHODS:A database of patients with operative adult spinal deformity (ASD) was analyzed. Patients fused to the pelvis and upper-instrumented vertebrae (UIV) above T11 were included. Alignment within the fusion correlated with clinical outcomes and PI. Short form 36-physical Component score (SF36-PCS) normative data and PI were used to compute functional alignment for each patient. Over-, under-, and functionally corrected groups were determined using T10-pelvic angle (T10PA). RESULTS:1052 patients met inclusion criteria. T10PA correlated with SF36-PCS and PI (R=0.601). At 6 weeks, 40.7% were functionally corrected, 39.4% were overcorrected, and 20.9% were under-corrected. The PJK incidence rate was 13.6%. Overcorrected patients had the highest PJK rate (18.1%) compared with functionally (11.3%) and under-corrected (9.5%) patients (P<0.05). Overcorrected patients had a trend toward more PJK revisions. All groups improved in HRQL; however, under-corrected patients had the worst 1-year SF36-PCS offset relative to normative patients of equivalent age (-8.1) vs. functional (-6.1) and overcorrected (-4.5), P<0.05. CONCLUSIONS:T10PA was used to determine functional alignment, an alignment based on PI and age-appropriate physical function. Correcting patients to functional alignment produced improvements in clinical outcomes, with the lowest rates of PJK. This patient specific approach to spinal alignment provides ASD correction targets that can be used intraoperatively.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:To analyze the impact of operative room (OR) time in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery on patient outcomes. BACKGROUND:It is currently unknown if OR time in ASD patients matched for deformity severity and surgical invasiveness is associated with patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:ASD patients with baseline and two-year postoperative radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) data, undergoing a posterior-only approach for long fusion (>L1-Ilium) were included. Patients were grouped into short OR time (<40th percentile: <359 min) and long OR time (>60th percentile: >421 min). Groups were matched by age, baseline deformity severity, and surgical invasiveness. Demographics, radiographic, PROM data, fusion rate, and complications were compared between groups at baseline and two years follow-up. RESULTS:In total, 270 patients were included for analysis: the mean OR time was 286 minutes in the short OR group versus 510 minutes in the long OR group ( P <0.001). Age, gender, percent of revision cases, surgical invasiveness, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis, sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic tilt were comparable between groups ( P >0.05). Short OR had a slightly lower body mass index than the short OR group ( P <0.001) and decompression was more prevalent in the long OR time ( P =0.042). Patients in the long group had greater hospital length of stay ( P =0.02); blood loss ( P <0.001); proportion requiring intensive care unit ( P =0.003); higher minor complication rate ( P =0.001); with no significant differences for major complications or revision procedures ( P >0.5). Both groups had comparable radiographic fusion rates ( P =0.152) and achieved improvement in sagittal alignment measures, Oswestry disability index, and Short Form-36 ( P <0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Shorter OR time for ASD correction is associated with a lower minor complication rate, a lower estimated blood loss, fewer intensive care unit admissions, and a shorter hospital length of stay without sacrificing alignment correction or PROMs. Maximizing operative efficiency by minimizing OR time in ASD surgery has the potential to benefit patients, surgeons, and hospital systems.

OBJECTIVE:Provide benchmarks for the rates of complications by type and timing. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective multicenter database. BACKGROUND:Complication rates following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery have been previously reported. However, the interplay between timing and complication type warrants further analysis. METHODS:The data for this study were sourced from a prospective, multicenter ASD database. Date and type of complication were collected and classified into three severity groups (minor, major, major leading to reoperation). Only complications occurring before the 2-year visit were retained for analysis. RESULTS:Of the 1260 patients eligible for 2-year follow-up, 997 (79.1%) achieved 2-year follow-up. The overall complication rate was 67.4% (N=672). 247 patients (24.8%) experienced at least one complication on the day of surgery (including intra-operatively), 359 (36.0%) between post-op day 1 and 6 weeks post-op, 271 (27.2%) between 6 weeks and 1 one -year post-op, and finally 162 (16.3%) between 1 year and 2 years post-op. Using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the rate of remaining complication-free was estimated at different time points for different severities and types of complications. Stratification by type of complication demonstrated that most of the medical complications occurred within the first 60 days. Surgical complications presented over two distinct timeframes. Operative complications, incision-related complications, and infections occurred early (within 60 d), while implant-related and radiographic complications occurred at a constant rate over the 2-year follow-up period. Neurologic complications had the highest occurrence within the first 60 days but continued to increase up to the 2-year visit. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Only one-third of ASD patients remained complication-free by 2 years, and 2 out of 10 patients had a complication requiring a reoperation or revision. Estimation of timing and type of complication associated with surgical treatment may prove useful for more meaningful patient counseling and aid in assessing the cost-effectiveness of treatment.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the effect of lower extremity osteoarthritis on sagittal alignment and compensatory mechanisms in adult spinal deformity (ASD). BACKGROUND:Spine, hip, and knee pathologies often overlap in ASD patients. Limited data exists on how lower extremity osteoarthritis impacts sagittal alignment and compensatory mechanisms in ASD. METHODS:527 pre-operative ASD patients with full body radiographs were included. Patients were grouped by Kellgren-Lawrence grade of bilateral hips and knees and stratified by quartile of T1-Pelvic Angle (T1PA) severity into low-, mid-, high-, and severe-T1PA. Full body alignment and compensation were compared across quartiles. Regression analysis examined the incremental impact of hip and knee osteoarthritis severity on compensation. RESULTS:The mean T1PA for low-, mid-, high-, and severe-T1PA groups was 7.3°, 19.5°, 27.8°, 41.6°, respectively. Mid-T1PA patients with severe hip osteoarthritis had an increased sagittal vertical axis and global sagittal alignment (P<0.001). Increasing hip osteoarthritis severity resulted in decreased pelvic tilt (P=0.001) and sacrofemoral angle (P<0.001), but increased knee flexion (P=0.012). Regression analysis revealed with increasing T1PA, pelvic tilt correlated inversely with hip osteoarthritis and positively with knee osteoarthritis (r2=0.812). Hip osteoarthritis decreased compensation via sacrofemoral angle (β-coefficient=-0.206). Knee and hip osteoarthritis contributed to greater knee flexion (β-coefficients=0.215, 0.101; respectively). For pelvic shift, only hip osteoarthritis significantly contributed to the model (β-coefficient=0.100). CONCLUSIONS:For the same magnitude of spinal deformity, increased hip osteoarthritis severity was associated with worse truncal and full body alignment with posterior translation of the pelvis. Patients with severe hip and knee osteoarthritis exhibited decreased hip extension and pelvic tilt, but increased knee flexion. This examines sagittal alignment and compensation in ASD patients with hip and knee arthritis and may help delineate whether hip and knee flexion is due to spinal deformity compensation or lower extremity osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE:The present study utilized recently developed in-construct measurements in simulations of cervical deformity surgery in order to assess undercorrection and predict distal junctional kyphosis (DJK). METHODS:A retrospective review of a database of operative cervical deformity patients was analyzed for severe DJK and mild DJK. C2-lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) sagittal angle (SA) was measured postoperatively, and the correction was simulated in the preoperative radiograph in order to match the C2-LIV by using the planning software. Linear regression analysis that used C2 pelvic angle (CPA) and pelvic tilt (PT) determined the simulated PT that matched the virtual CPA. Linear regression analysis was used to determine the C2-T1 SA, C2-T4 SA, and C2-T10 SA that corresponded to DJK of 20° and cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) of 40 mm. RESULTS:Sixty-nine cervical deformity patients were included. Severe and mild DJK occurred in 11 (16%) and 22 (32%) patients, respectively; 3 (4%) required DJK revision. Simulated corrections demonstrated that severe and mild DJK patients had worse alignment compared to non-DJK patients in terms of cSVA (42.5 mm vs 33.0 mm vs 23.4 mm, p < 0.001) and C2-LIV SVA (68.9 mm vs 57.3 mm vs 36.8 mm, p < 0.001). Linear regression revealed the relationships between in-construct measures (C2-T1 SA, C2-T4 SA, and C2-T10 SA), cSVA, and change in DJK (all R > 0.57, p < 0.001). A cSVA of 40 mm corresponded to C2-T4 SA of 10.4° and C2-T10 SA of 28.0°. A DJK angle change of 10° corresponded to C2-T4 SA of 5.8° and C2-T10 SA of 20.1°. CONCLUSIONS:Simulated cervical deformity corrections demonstrated that severe DJK patients have insufficient corrections compared to patients without DJK. In-construct measures assess sagittal alignment within the fusion separate from DJK and subjacent compensation. They can be useful as intraoperative tools to gauge the adequacy of cervical deformity correction.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Among adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients, heterogeneity in patient pathology, surgical expectations, baseline impairments, and frailty complicates comparisons in clinical outcomes and research. This study aims to qualitatively segment ASD patients using machine learning-based clustering on a large, multicenter, prospectively gathered ASD cohort. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To qualitatively segment adult spinal deformity patients using machine learning-based clustering on a large, multicenter, prospectively gathered cohort. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Machine learning algorithm using patients from a prospective multicenter study and a validation cohort from a retrospective single center, single surgeon cohort with complete 2-year follow up. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:About 805 ASD patients; 563 patients from a prospective multicenter study and 242 from a single center to be used as a validation cohort. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:To validate and extend the Ames-ISSG/ESSG classification using machine learning-based clustering analysis on a large, complex, multicenter, prospectively gathered ASD cohort. METHODS:We analyzed a training cohort of 563 ASD patients from a prospective multicenter study and a validation cohort of 242 ASD patients from a retrospective single center/surgeon cohort with complete two-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinical/radiographic follow-up. Using k-means clustering, a machine learning algorithm, we clustered patients based on baseline PROs, Edmonton frailty, age, surgical history, and overall health. Baseline differences in clusters identified using the training cohort were assessed using Chi-Squared and ANOVA with pairwise comparisons. To evaluate the classification system's ability to discern postoperative trajectories, a second machine learning algorithm assigned the single-center/surgeon patients to the same 4 clusters, and we compared the clusters' two-year PROs and clinical outcomes. RESULTS:K-means clustering revealed four distinct phenotypes from the multicenter training cohort based on age, frailty, and mental health: Old/Frail/Content (OFC, 27.7%), Old/Frail/Distressed (OFD, 33.2%), Old/Resilient/Content (ORC, 27.2%), and Young/Resilient/Content (YRC, 11.9%). OFC and OFD clusters had the highest frailty scores (OFC: 3.76, OFD: 4.72) and a higher proportion of patients with prior thoracolumbar fusion (OFC: 47.4%, OFD: 49.2%). ORC and YRC clusters exhibited lower frailty scores and fewest patients with prior thoracolumbar procedures (ORC: 2.10, 36.6%; YRC: 0.84, 19.4%). OFC had 69.9% of patients with global sagittal deformity and the highest T1PA (29.0), while YRC had 70.2% exhibiting coronal deformity, the highest mean coronal Cobb Angle (54.0), and the lowest T1PA (11.9). OFD and ORC had similar alignment phenotypes with intermediate values for Coronal Cobb Angle (OFD: 33.7; ORC: 40.0) and T1PA (OFD: 24.9; ORC: 24.6) between OFC (worst sagittal alignment) and YRC (worst coronal alignment). In the single surgeon validation cohort, the OFC cluster experienced the greatest increase in SRS Function scores (1.34 points, 95%CI 1.01-1.67) compared to OFD (0.5 points, 95%CI 0.245-0.755), ORC (0.7 points, 95%CI 0.415-0.985), and YRC (0.24 points, 95%CI -0.024-0.504) clusters. OFD cluster patients improved the least over 2 years. Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the OFD cohort had significantly worse reoperation outcomes compared to other clusters (HR: 3.303, 95%CI: 1.085-8.390). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Machine-learning clustering found four different ASD patient qualitative phenotypes, defined by their age, frailty, physical functioning, and mental health upon presentation, which primarily determines their ability to improve their PROs following surgery. This reaffirms that these qualitative measures must be assessed in addition to the radiographic variables when counseling ASD patients regarding their expected surgical outcomes.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To develop a simplified, modified frailty index for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients dependent on objective clinical factors. METHODS:value derived from multivariate forward stepwise regression were including in the modified ASD-FI (clin-ASD-FI). Factors included in the clin-ASD-FI were regressed against mortality, extended length of hospital stay (LOS, > 8 days), revisions, major complications and weights for the clin-ASD-FI were calculated via Beta/Sullivan. Total clin-ASD-FI score was created with a score from 0 to 1. Linear regression correlated clin-ASD-FI with ASD-FI scores and published cutoffs for the ASD-FI were used to create the new frailty cutoffs: not frail (NF: < 0.11), frail (F: 0.11-0.21) and severely frail (SF: > 0.21). Binary logistic regression assessed odds of complication or reop for frail patients. RESULTS:of 0.681, and significant factors were: < 18.5 or > 30 BMI (weight: 0.0625 out of 1), cardiac disease (0.125), disability employment status (0.3125), diabetes mellitus (0.0625), hypertension (0.0625), osteoporosis (0.125), blood clot (0.1875), and bowel incontinence (0.0625). These factors calculated the score from 0 to 1, with a mean cohort score of 0.13 ± 0.14. Breakdown by clin-ASD-FI score: 51.8% NF, 28.1% F, 20.2% SF. Increasing frailty severity was associated with longer LOS (NF: 7.0, F: 8.3, SF: 9.2 days; P < 0.001). Frailty independently predicted occurrence of any complication (OR: 9.357 [2.20-39.76], P = 0.002) and reop (OR: 2.79 [0.662-11.72], P = 0.162). CONCLUSIONS:Utilizing an existing ASD frailty index, we proposed a modified version eliminating the patient-reported components. This index is a true assessment of physiologic status, and represents a superior risk factor assessment compared to other tools for both primary and revision spinal deformity surgery as a result of its immutability with surgery, lack of subjectivity, and ease of use.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Multicenter retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:To investigate risk factors for loss of correction within the instrumented lumbar spine after adult spinal deformity surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:The sustainability of adult spinal deformity surgery remains a health care challenge. Malalignment is a major reason for revision surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:A total of 321 patients who underwent fusion of the lumbar spine (≥5 levels, LIV pelvis) with a revision-free follow-up of ≥3 years were identified. Patients were stratified by a change in pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis from 6 weeks to 3 years postoperative as "maintained" versus "loss" >5°. Those with instrumentation failure (broken rod, screw pullout, etc .) were excluded before comparisons. Demographics, surgical data, and radiographic alignment were compared. Repeated measure analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the maintenance of the correction for L1-L4 and L4-S1. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to identify independent surgical predictors of correction loss. RESULTS:The cohort had a mean age of 64 years, a mean Body Mass Index of 28 kg/m 2 , and 80% females. Eighty-two patients (25.5%) lost >5° of pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis correction (mean loss 10±5°). After the exclusion of patients with instrumentation failure, 52 losses were compared with 222 maintained. Demographics, osteotomies, 3CO, interbody fusion, use of bone morphogenetic protein, rod material, rod diameter, and fusion length were not significantly different. L1-S1 screw orientation angle was 1.3 ± 4.1 from early postoperative to 3 years ( P = 0.031), but not appreciably different at L4-S1 (-0.1 ± 2.9 P = 0.97). Lack of a supplemental rod (odds ratio: 4.0, P = 0.005) and fusion length (odds ratio 2.2, P = 0.004) were associated with loss of correction. CONCLUSIONS:Approximately, a quarter of revision-free patients lose an average of 10° of their 6-week correction by 3 years. Lordosis is lost proximally through the instrumentation ( i.e. tulip/shank angle shifts and/or rod bending). The use of supplemental rods and avoiding sagittal overcorrection may help mitigate this loss.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study. BACKGROUND:Little is known of the intersection between surgical invasiveness, cervical deformity (CD) severity, and frailty. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of CD surgery by invasiveness, frailty status, and baseline magnitude of deformity. METHODS:This study included CD patients with 1-year follow-up. Patients stratified in high deformity if severe in the following criteria: T1 slope minus cervical lordosis, McGregor's slope, C2-C7, C2-T3, and C2 slope. Frailty scores categorized patients into not frail and frail. Patients are categorized by frailty and deformity (not frail/low deformity; not frail/high deformity; frail/low deformity; frail/high deformity). Logistic regression assessed increasing invasiveness and outcomes [distal junctional failure (DJF), reoperation]. Within frailty/deformity groups, decision tree analysis assessed thresholds for an invasiveness cutoff above which experiencing a reoperation, DJF or not achieving Good Clinical Outcome was more likely. RESULTS:A total of 115 patients were included. Frailty/deformity groups: 27% not frail/low deformity, 27% not frail/high deformity, 23.5% frail/low deformity, and 22.5% frail/high deformity. Logistic regression analysis found increasing invasiveness and occurrence of DJF [odds ratio (OR): 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05, P =0.002], and invasiveness increased with deformity severity ( P <0.05). Not frail/low deformity patients more often met Optimal Outcome with an invasiveness index <63 (OR: 27.2, 95% CI: 2.7-272.8, P =0.005). An invasiveness index <54 for the frail/low deformity group led to a higher likelihood of meeting the Optimal Outcome (OR: 9.6, 95% CI: 1.5-62.2, P =0.018). For the frail/high deformity group, patients with a score <63 had a higher likelihood of achieving Optimal Outcome (OR: 4.8, 95% CI: 1.1-25.8, P =0.033). There was no significant cutoff of invasiveness for the not frail/high deformity group. CONCLUSIONS:Our study correlated increased invasiveness in CD surgery to the risk of DJF, reoperation, and poor clinical success. The thresholds derived for deformity severity and frailty may enable surgeons to individualize the invasiveness of their procedures during surgical planning to account for the heightened risk of adverse events and minimize unfavorable outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Achieving spinopelvic realignment during adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery does not always produce ideal outcomes. Little is known whether compensation in lower extremities (LEs) plays a role in this disassociation. The objective is to analyze lower extremity compensation after complex ASD surgery, its effect on outcomes, and whether correction can alleviate these mechanisms. METHODS:We included patients with complex ASD with 6-week data. LE parameters were as follows: sacrofemoral angle, knee flexion angle, and ankle flexion angle. Each parameter was ranked, and upper tertile was deemed compensation. Patients compensating and not compensating postoperatively were propensity score matched for body mass index, frailty, and T1 pelvic angle. Linear regression assessed correlation between LE parameters and baseline deformity, demographics, and surgical details. Multivariate analysis controlling for baseline deformity and history of total knee/hip arthroplasty evaluated outcomes. RESULTS:Two hundred and ten patients (age: 61.3 ± 14.1 years, body mass index: 27.4 ± 5.8 kg/m2, Charlson Comorbidity Index: 1.1 ± 1.6, 72% female, 22% previous total joint arthroplasty, 24% osteoporosis, levels fused: 13.1 ± 3.8) were included. At baseline, 59% were compensating in LE: 32% at hips, 39% knees, and 36% ankles. After correction, 61% were compensating at least one joint. Patients undercorrected postoperatively were less likely to relieve LE compensation (odds ratio: 0.2, P = .037). Patients compensating in LE were more often undercorrected in age-adjusted pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, and T1 pelvic angle and disproportioned in Global Alignment and Proportion (P < .05). Patients matched in sagittal age-adjusted score at 6 weeks but compensating in LE were more likely to develop proximal junctional kyphosis (odds ratio: 4.1, P = .009) and proximal junctional failure (8% vs 0%, P = .035) than those sagittal age-adjusted score-matched and not compensating in LE. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Perioperative lower extremity compensation was a product of undercorrecting complex ASD. Even in age-adjusted realignment, compensation was associated with global undercorrection and junctional failure. Consideration of lower extremities during planning is vital to avoid adverse outcomes in perioperative course after complex ASD surgery.