Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective, multicenter study. OBJECTIVE:To compare and characterize complications in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients with and without 3-column osteotomy (3CO). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Although 3CO is associated with increased risk of neurologic adverse events, no study has, to our knowledge, compared and characterized sensory and motor neurologic complications in ASD patients with vs. without 3CO. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Demographics, surgical characteristics, and neurologic complications were collected for 553 ASD patients. Lower extremity motor scores (LEMSs) were compared at baseline and postoperatively. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with neurologic adverse events. RESULTS:Among 553 ASD patients, 130 (23.5%) underwent 3CO. More patients with 3CO were revision patients (67.7% vs. 35.0%; P<0.001), presented with sagittal deformity (43.9% vs. 31.0%; P=0.008), and had longer operative times (455.6 vs. 407.3 min; P=0.001) and greater estimated blood loss (EBL) (1,650 vs. 1,000 mL; P<0.001) than patients without 3CO. The incidence of neurologic adverse events was greater among patients with vs. without 3CO (23.1% vs. 15.4%; P=0.04). Multivariate analysis revealed that older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.288 per 10-year increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.060-1.565, P=0.01) and longer operative time (OR 1.088, 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P=0.01) were significant predictors of neurologic adverse events. No between-group difference in LEMS was observed at 6-week (49.0 vs. 49.0; P=0.90) or 1-year (49.4 vs. 49.3; P=0.71) follow-up. By 1-year follow-up, 20.5% of 3CO patients and 21.6% of patients without 3CO had residual motor deficit. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with patients who did not undergo 3CO, more patients with 3CO had prior instrumentation, presented with sagittal deformity, had longer operative time and greater EBL, and were more likely to have a neurologic adverse event. At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in LEMS between the two groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

OBJECTIVE:The all-payer model is a healthcare payment system unique to the state of Maryland, while the Medicare Severity-Diagnosis-Related Group (MS-DRG) model is used by all other states. The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in reimbursement and inpatient length of stay (LOS) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery between the all-payer and MS-DRG models. METHODS:MS-DRG reimbursements were calculated using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Web Pricer tool; reimbursements for the all-payer model were compiled from a single institution in the state of Maryland. Payments for the most frequently occurring ASD MS-DRGs (codes 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, and 460) were analyzed for fiscal years 2018-2023. The mean inpatient LOS was calculated for each MS-DRG code and reimbursement model. RESULTS:When comparing 416 MS-DRG and 1783 all-payer model accounts, the overall mean reimbursements for ASD surgery were significantly lower under the MS-DRG model ($59,199 vs $77,246, p < 0.001). The mean reimbursement payments for MS-DRG codes 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, and 460 were significantly higher under the Maryland all-payer model (p < 0.001). The mean LOS was significantly shorter in the all-payer model for MS-DRG code 453 (p = 0.046) and longer for code 457 (p < 0.001). For all other codes, no significant differences in LOS were observed. CONCLUSIONS:ASD surgery reimbursements are higher overall under the Maryland all-payer model compared with the MS-DRG model. The mean inpatient LOS did not differ significantly across most MS-DRG codes, highlighting the financial viability of an all-payer model in a healthcare system.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of multicenter data. OBJECTIVE:To compare long-term neurologic recovery in patients with and without incidental durotomy (hereafter, "durotomy") after adult spinal deformity surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Durotomy is a common complication of adult spinal deformity surgery and is typically associated with technical challenges during the procedure. METHODS:Using a prospectively collected database, we included 1452 patients (73% female; mean age, 60±14 y) who underwent adult spinal deformity surgery from 2008-2020 at 22 US centers. We compared patients with and without durotomy with respect to demographic characteristics, surgical variables, and neurologic outcomes at baseline and at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Multivariate analysis compared neurologic complications and length of stay (LOS) between the groups. P<.05 was considered significant. RESULTS:Durotomy occurred in 121 patients (8.3%). Patients with durotomy were more likely to have undergone revision surgery (P<.001) and had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index values (P=.029) than those who did not. Patients with durotomy had higher estimated blood loss, longer operative time, more frequent 3-column osteotomies, and longer LOS (all, P<.001). Lower-extremity motor scores did not differ between patients with durotomy and those without at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. The incidence of neurologic, medical, and surgical complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Patients with durotomy had a higher rate of inpatient return to the operating room (5.0%) than those without (2.0%) (P=.04). On multivariate analysis, there were no differences between groups in lower-extremity motor scores, neurologic complications, or LOS. CONCLUSIONS:Incidental durotomy during adult spinal deformity surgery was associated with greater intraoperative complexity and transient sensory symptoms but did not adversely affect long-term motor recovery, neurologic complications, or patient-reported outcomes. These findings suggest durotomy is a manageable complication without lasting functional consequences.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected, multicenter data. OBJECTIVE:To assess associations between patient height and weight independently and interactively with the incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) after surgical treatment of adult spine deformity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Body mass index has traditionally been used to assess the influence of body composition on surgical outcomes, but the individual effects of height and weight have not been studied in relation to PJK. METHODS:We compared baseline demographic characteristics, radiographic measurements, and perioperative variables between patients who developed PJK after adult spinal deformity surgery between 2008 and 2020 and those who did not. Using a generalized additive model with a logistic link function, we modeled height and weight and their interaction as smooth terms to capture potential nonlinear effects on PJK risk. Multivariate analysis was adjusted for age, history of osteoporosis, upper instrumented vertebra, number of levels fused, and postoperative pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis and T1 pelvic angle. RESULTS:Of 904 included patients, the median age was 65 years (interquartile range: 58-71), and 76% were female. PJK developed in 131 patients (14%). Baseline characteristics, including frailty, comorbidities, and radiographic measures, did not differ significantly between the PJK and non-PJK groups. Taller height was a predictor of PJK (P=.03). In contrast, weight was not an independent predictor, and there was no significant interaction between height and weight. The incidence of PJK peaked at a height of approximately 179 cm before plateauing. CONCLUSIONS:Taller height, but not weight, was associated with developing PJK after adult spinal deformity surgery. These findings underscore the importance of considering patient height during surgical planning.

Adult spinal deformity patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty experience higher hip dislocation rates than those with normal spinal alignment. The traditional Lewinnek safe zone does not account for spinopelvic variation such as pelvic retroversion. To address this, three patient-specific normative zones for acetabular anteversion were defined. A multicenter retrospective analysis of 146 adult spinal deformity patients and 47 asymptomatic controls was performed using three-dimensional biplanar radiograph reconstructions to measure spinopelvic alignment and acetabular orientation. Normative Zone 1, for patients not undergoing spinal realignment, was delineated by the 95% confidence interval limits: minimum anteversion = 0.3182 × pelvic tilt +2.947 and maximum anteversion = 0.3317 × pelvic tilt +25.823. Normative Zone 2, for patients following spinal realignment, was based on pelvic incidence: minimum anteversion = 0.0682 × pelvic incidence +9.7749 and maximum anteversion = 0.0698 × pelvic incidence +21.5218. Normative Zone 3, intended for cases with uncertain spinal correction plans, was defined as the intersection of Zones 1 and 2, yielding a narrower target anteversion range. These zones enable patient-specific cup placement that accounts for existing or planned spinal alignment, with the potential to reduce dislocation risk. Clinical Significance: This study provides acetabular cup orientation tailored to each patient's spinopelvic alignment and surgical plan, potentially reducing dislocation rates in spinal malalignment patients.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study using a multicenter, prospectively collected adult spinal deformity (ASD) database. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether achieving the ideal L1 pelvic angle (L1PA) in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for ASD correction is associated with reduced mechanical failure and improved clinical outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Prior research has shown that achieving ideal L1PA-defined as (0.5×pelvic incidence)-21-is linked to lower reoperation risk in open ASD correction. Its relevance in MIS has not been well established. METHODS:A total of 1104 ASD patients across 13 centers were included (criteria: scoliosis ≥20°, SVA ≥5 cm, PT ≥25°, or TK ≥60°, with ≥2-year follow-up). Radiographic parameters and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected preoperatively, at six weeks, and at final follow-up. Ideal L1PA was defined as within ±5° of the calculated target. MIS was defined as circumferential MIS (LLIF/ALIF with percutaneous posterior fixation). Associations between alignment and outcomes (reoperation, PROs) were analyzed using linear regression and t tests. RESULTS:Ideal L1PA was achieved in 63% of MIS cases and 61% of open cases ( P =0.342). Among MIS patients, ideal L1PA correlated with lower reoperation rates (15% vs. 33%, P <0.01) and greater improvement in SRS-22 total (Δ0.85 vs. Δ0.40, P <0.01) and SF-36 PCS scores (Δ9.1 vs. Δ4.6, P =0.04). In contrast, ideal L1PA was not associated with reduced reoperation in the open group. Across all patients, each 1° deviation from ideal L1PA increased reoperation risk by 1.8% ( P =0.04). CONCLUSIONS:Ideal L1PA is achievable in MIS at similar rates as open surgery. In MIS-treated ASD patients, achieving ideal alignment is associated with reduced reoperation and improved clinical outcomes, supporting its role as a key surgical target.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Multicenter prospective study. OBJECTIVE:The present study investigates in-construct measurements of sagittal angles (SA) within the fusion from C2 to various thoracic vertebrae, which can be used as targets for CD correction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Correcting cervical deformity (CD) has the potential to significantly improve patient function. However, previously described radiographic parameters cannot be measured intraoperatively. METHODS:Patients with CD that had a LIV at T1 or caudal were included. Patients were categorized into the failed outcome group if they had a cSVA of more than 4 cm within 3 months postoperatively. The in-construct measurements were based on patients' LIV. All patients had a C2-T1 SA. C2-T4 SA were compared between groups with LIV below T4, and C2-T10 SA between groups with LIV below T10. Change in C2-LIV SA described the correction within the fusion for each patient. Linear regression analysis was used to determine the C2-T1, C2-T4, C2-T10 SA measures corresponding to a cSVA = 4 cm.HRQL analysis was done in patients with 1-year follow-up. RESULTS:Among 143 patients (mean age 63, 60% female), 51% had radiographic failure. Multivariate regression showed that postoperative C2-T1 SA independently predicted failed alignment (OR = 1.22, CI 1.10-1.35; P < 0.001). A cSVA of 4 cm correlated with a C2-T1 SA of -9.6° and C2-T10 SA of 14.7° (r > 0.38, P < 0.05). ΔDJKA was found to significantly correlated with the C2-T10 SA (r > 0.57, P = 0.02). Though HRQL outcomes did not differ significantly between groups, greater C2-LIV SA correction was associated with improved neck pain (r > 0.42, P = 0.036). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Failure to restore cSVA and development of DJK was independently associated with under correction as evidenced by significantly larger postoperative in-construct angles.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The increasing prevalence of adult spinal deformity (ASD) highlights the need for effective treatment strategies. While minimally invasive spine surgery has improved outcomes, patients with severe deformity often require more extensive correction. This study evaluates the outcomes of combining prone transpsoas (PTP) lumbar interbody fusion with posterior column osteotomies (PCO) or pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSO) for severe ASD correction. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:-tests, and Spearman's rank coefficients were used to evaluate correlations. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Complication rates were similar between PCO and PSO patients. Significant improvements were observed in lumbar lordosis (LL) (P=0.002), SVA (P=0.03), TPA (P=0.04), coronal Cobb angle (P=0.03), and PI-LL mismatch (P=0.003). SL did not change significantly at any level. Clinically, ODI, VAS-B, and VAS-L scores improved significantly (P<0.001 for all). Correlations showed moderate to strong negative associations between SL at L2-L3 and patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Combining PTP with PCO or PSO provides significant radiographic and clinical improvements in severe ASD patients. This hybrid approach may serve as a safe, efficient alternative to traditional multistage open surgeries, warranting further prospective validation.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a potential source of pain in the ASD population. Incidence and predictors of preoperative SIJ pain and rates of resolution with surgery in the ASD population are not well understood. METHODS:A prospective, multicenter database of surgically treated ASD patients was queried for baseline SIJ pain at the preoperative assessment. SIJ pain was defined as self-reported back pain in the posterior superior iliac spine region scored ≥4 out of 10 and ≥3 of 5 positive provocative SIJ maneuvers. Demographic data, spinal alignment parameters, and health assessments were assessed using Wilcoxon and χ 2 analysis. Predictors of preoperative SIJ pain were assessed with univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS:A total of 735 patients were included with a mean (SD) age of 61.3 (15.3) years, BMI of 27.6 (5.4), Edmonton Frailty Score (EFS) of 3.4 (2.5), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 1.1 (1.8). A total of 65% were female and 6% were tobacco users. A total of 411 patients had self-reported PSIS pain and 53 patients (7.2%) had preoperative SIJ pain as assessed by SIJ maneuver testing. SIJ pain was not associated with history of prior lumbosacral fusion ( P =0.23). Patients with SIJ pain had higher BMI (30.0 vs . 27.4, P =0.004), preoperative pain medication usage (92.5% vs . 77.7%, P =0.02), EFS (4.6 vs . 3.3, P <0.001), and CCI (1.6 vs . 1.0, P =0.006) as well as lower L4-S1 lordosis (28.7 vs . 34.5, P =0.02) and greater L1 pelvic angle (14.5 vs . 10.8, P =0.03). After variable selection with univariate regression, multivariate logistic regression identified higher BMI (OR 1.06, P =0.033) as a significant predictor of SIJ pain at preoperative. In the patient cohort with SIJ pain at preoperative, 91.7% reported no SIJ pain at 1-year follow-up. 11/53 (20.8%) patients with baseline pain and SIJ fusion performed concurrently with ASD surgery had 100% resolution of SIJ pain in this cohort; however, there was no significant difference in pain resolution between patients with SIJ fusion and those without ( P =1). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We found a lower prevalence of preoperative SIJ pain in ASD patients than what has been historically reported, present in 7.2% of patients. Higher BMI was a predictor of preoperative SIJ pain in this population. ASD surgery led to resolution of SIJ pain in >90% of patients at 1-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE:Assess the distribution of Medicare's spinal-deformity-specific diagnosis-related group (DRGs) relative to surgical invasiveness, hospital length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, 90-day postoperative quality metrics, and reimbursement costs for adult spinal deformity (ASD) operations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Heterogeneity of ASD call into question Medicare's DRGs to accurately capture nuances of ASD surgical episodes of care. METHODS:Adults who underwent thoracic to pelvis instrumentation with associated DRGs were identified from a multicenter database. Demographics, operative details, inpatient course, discharge disposition, 90-day adverse events, and reimbursement costs were compared between spinal deformity-specific DRG codes. Distribution of DRGs for a subset of these patients who fit into one of 6 commonly performed surgical strategies to address ASD was also assessed. RESULTS:Of the 314 patients included for analysis, the majority fell into +CC DRGs, while the minority had +MCC DRGs or no MCC/CC DRG. Within each DRG, there was considerable heterogeneity in regard to patients' ages, ASA, CCI, frailty, surgical invasiveness, postoperative ICU/hospital LOS, discharge disposition, and complication profiles.+MCC DRGs had significantly greater ASA and Edmonton Frailty Scores. While +MCC and +CC had relatively similar surgical invasiveness, +MCC had greater ICU admissions, in-hospital adverse events, and nonhome discharges as well as longer ICU, hospital, and rehab LOS. While reimbursements were significantly higher for +MCC DRG compared with +CC DRGs and DRGs without MCC/CC, there were large ranges in reimbursement within all DRG subgroups.The 7 DRGs varied significantly within and between the subset of 6 commonly performed surgical strategies, although there were no differences in regard to ICU admissions and LOS, hospital LOS, discharge disposition, and number of adverse events (in-hospital, 90-day). CONCLUSIONS:While Medicare's spinal-deformity DRG codes capture average trends in surgical/postoperative episodes of care for ASD patients, each encompasses highly heterogeneous patients and associated surgical operations rendering them unreliable gauges of patient/surgical complexity, early postoperative trajectories, and reimbursement costs. A more granular system is needed to more accurately capture the nuances of ASD operations and their associated quality metrics and reimbursement costs.