Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Our understanding of the relationship between sagittal alignment and mechanical complications is evolving. In normal spines, the L1-pelvic angle (L1PA) accounts for the magnitude and distribution of lordosis and is strongly associated with pelvic incidence (PI), and the T4-pelvic angle (T4PA) is within 4° of the L1PA. We aimed to examine the clinical implications of realignment to a normal L1PA and T4-L1PA mismatch. METHODS:A prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity registry was queried for patients who underwent fixation from the T1-T5 region to the sacrum and had 2-year radiographic follow-up. Normal sagittal alignment was defined as previously described for normal spines: L1PA = PI × 0.5 - 21°, and T4-L1PA mismatch = 0°. Mechanical failure was defined as severe proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), displaced rod fracture, or reoperation for junctional failure, pseudarthrosis, or rod fracture within 2 years. Multivariable nonlinear logistic regression was used to define target ranges for L1PA and T4-L1PA mismatch that minimized the risk of mechanical failure. The relationship between changes in T4PA and changes in global sagittal alignment according to the C2-pelvic angle (C2PA) was determined using linear regression. Lastly, multivariable regression was used to assess associations between initial postoperative C2PA and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year, adjusting for preoperative scores and age. RESULTS:The median age of the 247 included patients was 64 years (interquartile range, 57 to 69 years), and 202 (82%) were female. Deviation from a normal L1PA or T4-L1PA mismatch in either direction was associated with a significantly higher risk of mechanical failure, independent of age. Risk was minimized with an L1PA of PI × 0.5 - (19° ± 2°) and T4-L1PA mismatch between -3° and +1°. Changes in T4PA and in C2PA at the time of final follow-up were strongly associated (r2 = 0.96). Higher postoperative C2PA was independently associated with more disability, more pain, and worse self-image at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:We defined sagittal alignment targets using L1PA (relative to PI) and the T4-L1PA mismatch, which are both directly modifiable during surgery. In patients undergoing long fusion to the sacrum, realignment based on these targets may lead to fewer mechanical failures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND:Our understanding of the relationship between sagittal alignment and mechanical complications is evolving. In normal spines, the L1-pelvic angle (L1PA) accounts for the magnitude and distribution of lordosis and is strongly associated with pelvic incidence (PI), and the T4-pelvic angle (T4PA) is within 4° of the L1PA. We aimed to examine the clinical implications of realignment to a normal L1PA and T4-L1PA mismatch. METHODS:A prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity registry was queried for patients who underwent fixation from the T1-T5 region to the sacrum and had 2-year radiographic follow-up. Normal sagittal alignment was defined as previously described for normal spines: L1PA = PI × 0.5 - 21°, and T4-L1PA mismatch = 0°. Mechanical failure was defined as severe proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), displaced rod fracture, or reoperation for junctional failure, pseudarthrosis, or rod fracture within 2 years. Multivariable nonlinear logistic regression was used to define target ranges for L1PA and T4-L1PA mismatch that minimized the risk of mechanical failure. The relationship between changes in T4PA and changes in global sagittal alignment according to the C2-pelvic angle (C2PA) was determined using linear regression. Lastly, multivariable regression was used to assess associations between initial postoperative C2PA and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year, adjusting for preoperative scores and age. RESULTS:The median age of the 247 included patients was 64 years (interquartile range, 57 to 69 years), and 202 (82%) were female. Deviation from a normal L1PA or T4-L1PA mismatch in either direction was associated with a significantly higher risk of mechanical failure, independent of age. Risk was minimized with an L1PA of PI × 0.5 - (19° ± 2°) and T4-L1PA mismatch between -3° and +1°. Changes in T4PA and in C2PA at the time of final follow-up were strongly associated (r2 = 0.96). Higher postoperative C2PA was independently associated with more disability, more pain, and worse self-image at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:We defined sagittal alignment targets using L1PA (relative to PI) and the T4-L1PA mismatch, which are both directly modifiable during surgery. In patients undergoing long fusion to the sacrum, realignment based on these targets may lead to fewer mechanical failures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Understanding the mechanism and extent of preoperative deformity in revision procedures may provide data to prevent future failures in lumbar spinal fusion patients. METHODS:ASD patients without prior spine surgery (PRIMARY) and with prior short (SHORT) and long (LONG) fusions were included. SHORT patients were stratified into modes of failure: implant, junctional, malalignment, and neurologic. Baseline demographics, spinopelvic alignment, offset from alignment targets, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared across PRIMARY and SHORT cohorts. Segmental lordosis analyses, assessing under-, match, or over-correction to segmental and global lordosis targets, were performed by SRS-Schwab coronal curve type and construct length. RESULTS:Among 785 patients, 430 (55%) were PRIMARY and 355 (45%) were revisions. Revision procedures included 181 (23%) LONG and 174 (22%) SHORT corrections. SHORT modes of failure included 27% implant, 40% junctional, 73% malalignment, and/or 28% neurologic. SHORT patients were older, frailer, and had worse baseline deformity (PT, PI-LL, SVA) and PROMs (NRS, ODI, VR-12, SRS-22) compared to primary patients (p < 0.001). Segmental lordosis analysis identified 93%, 88%, and 62% undercorrected patients at LL, L1-L4, and L4-S1, respectively. SHORT patients more often underwent 3-column osteotomies (30% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and had higher ISSG Surgical Invasiveness Score (87.8 vs. 78.3, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS:Nearly half of adult spinal deformity surgeries were revision fusions. Revision short fusions were associated with sagittal malalignment, often due to undercorrection of segmental lordosis goals, and frequently required more invasive procedures. Further initiatives to optimize alignment in lumbar fusions are needed to avoid costly and invasive deformity corrections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to assess the impact of fractional curve (FC) severity on curve progression and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing adult idiopathic scoliosis (AdIS) correction. METHODS:Patients with AdIS who had preoperative coronal plane deformity and who had undergone thoracolumbar fusion with a lowermost instrumented vertebra (LIV) between L1 and L4 were included. Patients were stratified by 6-week postoperative FC severity (small FC, ≤ 40th percentile, large FC, ≥ 60th percentile of the entire cohort; calculated as the Cobb angle between LIV and S1) and age groups. Preoperative to 2-year postoperative changes in FC were evaluated using Student t-tests. Demographics, spinopelvic alignment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were compared using chi-square tests for categorical variables and Student t-tests for quantitative variables. Multivariate regression analyses, accounting for age, sex, frailty, and 6-week postoperative LIV, were also performed when feasible to assess the impact of FC on 2-year postoperative outcomes. RESULTS:In total, 86 patients, with 34 in the group with small FCs and 34 in the group with large FCs, were examined (18 were in the group with medium FC). The mean age (36.4 years for those with small FCs vs 36.0 years for those with large FCs, p > 0.05) was similar. Preoperatively, spinopelvic parameters and PROMs were comparable (p > 0.05). Two years postoperatively, higher postoperative FC was associated with larger thoracolumbar deformity (i.e., higher thoracolumbar/lumbar/lumbosacral Cobb angles) and lower perceived lumbar stiffness (p < 0.05); however, other PROMs and complications, including revisions, were comparable (p > 0.05). Bidirectional change in postoperative FC was associated with a lower C7 pelvic angle and lower C7 plumb line (R2 = -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.00, p = 0.050). Across all patients, the mean FC improved from baseline to 6 weeks postoperatively (from 18.1° to 6.5°, p < 0.001) but changed minimally from 6 weeks to 2 years postoperatively (from 6.5° to 6.5°, p = 0.942). After stratification, the cohort with small FCs exhibited a relative increase (from 1.6° to 3.5°, p < 0.001), whereas the cohort with large FCs noted a nonsignificant change (from 11.9° to 9.8°, p = 0.121) in FC over time. CONCLUSIONS:Following surgery for AdIS, larger residual lumbosacral FCs were not correlated with adverse events or poor outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. FCs may improve or worsen over time to drive improvement in global coronal balance surgery, but are not associated with adverse outcomes or reoperation during the first 2 years after surgery.

OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to assess the impact of fractional curve (FC) severity on curve progression and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing adult idiopathic scoliosis (AdIS) correction. METHODS:Patients with AdIS who had preoperative coronal plane deformity and who had undergone thoracolumbar fusion with a lowermost instrumented vertebra (LIV) between L1 and L4 were included. Patients were stratified by 6-week postoperative FC severity (small FC, ≤ 40th percentile, large FC, ≥ 60th percentile of the entire cohort; calculated as the Cobb angle between LIV and S1) and age groups. Preoperative to 2-year postoperative changes in FC were evaluated using Student t-tests. Demographics, spinopelvic alignment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were compared using chi-square tests for categorical variables and Student t-tests for quantitative variables. Multivariate regression analyses, accounting for age, sex, frailty, and 6-week postoperative LIV, were also performed when feasible to assess the impact of FC on 2-year postoperative outcomes. RESULTS:In total, 86 patients, with 34 in the group with small FCs and 34 in the group with large FCs, were examined (18 were in the group with medium FC). The mean age (36.4 years for those with small FCs vs 36.0 years for those with large FCs, p > 0.05) was similar. Preoperatively, spinopelvic parameters and PROMs were comparable (p > 0.05). Two years postoperatively, higher postoperative FC was associated with larger thoracolumbar deformity (i.e., higher thoracolumbar/lumbar/lumbosacral Cobb angles) and lower perceived lumbar stiffness (p < 0.05); however, other PROMs and complications, including revisions, were comparable (p > 0.05). Bidirectional change in postoperative FC was associated with a lower C7 pelvic angle and lower C7 plumb line (R2 = -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.00, p = 0.050). Across all patients, the mean FC improved from baseline to 6 weeks postoperatively (from 18.1° to 6.5°, p < 0.001) but changed minimally from 6 weeks to 2 years postoperatively (from 6.5° to 6.5°, p = 0.942). After stratification, the cohort with small FCs exhibited a relative increase (from 1.6° to 3.5°, p < 0.001), whereas the cohort with large FCs noted a nonsignificant change (from 11.9° to 9.8°, p = 0.121) in FC over time. CONCLUSIONS:Following surgery for AdIS, larger residual lumbosacral FCs were not correlated with adverse events or poor outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. FCs may improve or worsen over time to drive improvement in global coronal balance surgery, but are not associated with adverse outcomes or reoperation during the first 2 years after surgery.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:This study evaluates the impact of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and knee arthroplasty on alignments and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMS) of patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery. BACKGROUND:The relationship between knee OA and spinal alignment in patients with ASD is incompletely understood. It is also unknown how patients with knee arthroplasty and ASD compare to ASD patients with native knees. METHODS:Baseline full-body radiographs were used, and hip and knee OA were graded by two independent reviewers using the KL classification. Spinopelvic parameters and PROMs were compared across the different knee OA groups and compared between patients with knee replacement and native knees. RESULTS:199 patients with bilateral non severe OA (G1), 31 patients with unilateral severe knee OA (G2), and 60 patients with bilateral severe knee OA (G3). Patients with severe knee OA presented with worse spinopelvic parameters. However, after multivariable regression analysis controlling for age, frailty, PI, T1PA, knee OA was an independent predictor of knee flexion (G1:-0.02±7.3, G2: 7.8±9.4, G3: 4.5±8.7, P<0.001), and ankle dorsiflexion (G1: 2.3±4.0, G2: 6.6±4.5, G3: 5.1±4.1, P<0.001). There was no difference in PROMs (P>0.05). Secondary analysis included 96 patients: 48 patients (50%) with non-severe knee OA, and 48 patients (50%) with knee replacement. There was no difference in radiographic parameters or PROMs between the groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this study of complex ASD patients, patients with worse spinal deformity were more likely to have concomitant knee OA. Knee OA was shown to be a predictor of knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion angles, but was not associated with worse PROMs in this study population. Patients with knee arthroplasty, however, had comparable spinal alignment and PROMs relative to those with mild OA.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The spectrum of patients requiring adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is highly variable in baseline (BL) risk such as age, frailty, and deformity severity. Although improvements have been realized in ASD surgery over the past decade, it is unknown whether these carry over to high-risk patients. We aim to determine temporal differences in outcomes at 2 years after ASD surgery in patients stratified by BL risk. METHODS:Patients ≥18 years with complete pre- (BL) and 2-year (2Y) postoperative data from 2009 to 2018 were categorized as having undergone surgery from 2009 to 2013 [early] or from 2014 to 2018 [late]. High-risk [HR] patients met ≥2 of the criteria: (1) ++ BL pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis or SVA by Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab criteria, (2) elderly [≥70 years], (3) severe BL frailty, (4) high Charlson comorbidity index, (5) undergoing 3-column osteotomy, and (6) fusion of >12 levels, or >7 levels for elderly patients. Demographics, clinical outcomes, radiographic alignment targets, and complication rates were assessed by time period for high-risk patients. RESULTS:Of the 725 patients included, 52% (n = 377) were identified as HR. 47% (n = 338) had surgery pre-2014 [early], and 53% (n = 387) underwent surgery in 2014 or later [late]. There was a higher proportion of HR patients in Late group (56% vs 48%). Analysis by early/late status showed no significant differences in achieving improved radiographic alignment by SRS-Schwab, age-adjusted alignment goals, or global alignment and proportion proportionality by 2Y (all P > .05). Late/HR patients had significantly less poor clinical outcomes per SRS and Oswestry Disability Index (both P < .01). Late/HR patients had fewer complications (63% vs 74%, P = .025), reoperations (17% vs 30%, P = .002), and surgical infections (0.9% vs 4.3%, P = .031). Late/HR patients had lower rates of early proximal junctional kyphosis (10% vs 17%, P = .041) and proximal junctional failure (11% vs 22%, P = .003). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite operating on more high-risk patients between 2014 and 2018, surgeons effectively reduced rates of complications, mechanical failures, and reoperations, while simultaneously improving health-related quality of life.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients with sagittal plane deformity (N) or structural lumbar/thoraco-lumbar (TL) curves can be treated with fusions stopping at the TL junction or extending to the upper thoracic (UT) spine. This study evaluates the impact on cost/cumulative quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in patients treated with TL vs UT fusion. METHODS:ASD patients with > 4-level fusion and 2-year follow-up were included. Index and total episode-of-care costs were estimated using average itemized direct costs obtained from hospital records. Cumulative QALY gained were calculated from preoperative to 2-year postoperative change in Short Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) scores. The TL and UT groups comprised patients with upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) at T9-T12 and T2-T5, respectively. RESULTS:Of 566 patients with type N or L curves, mean age was 63.2 ± 12.1 years, 72% were female and 93% Caucasians. Patients in the TL group had better sagittal vertical axis (7.3 ± 6.9 vs. 9.2 ± 8.1 cm, p = 0.01), lower surgical invasiveness (- 30; p < 0.001), and shorter OR time (- 35 min; p = 0.01). Index and total costs were 20% lower in the TL than in the UT group (p < 0.001). Cost/QALY was 65% lower (492,174.6 vs. 963,391.4), and 2-year QALY gain was 40% higher, in the TL than UT group (0.15 vs. 0.10; p = 0.02). Multivariate model showed TL fusions had lower total cost (p = 0.001) and higher QALY gain (p = 0.03) than UT fusions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In Schwab type N or L curves, TL fusions showed lower 2-year cost and improved QALY gain without increased reoperation rates or length of stay than UT fusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Single-center retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:To compare the correction of fractional curve and L5 tilt in 2RVBT versus PSF with LIV in the lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Vertebral body tethering, an AIS fusion-alternative, avoids rigid constructs, allowing for lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection. Single-tether constructs break, but mini-open thoracoscopic assistant double-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) reduces this. Limited comparative studies exist with posterior spinal fusion (PSF). METHODS:Retrospective analysis of AIS correction surgeries with lumbar LIV using preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative imaging. Patients were divided into 2RVBT or PSF groups. Data included age, Riser, UIV, LIV, instrumented levels, and revision rates. Radiographic analyses included preoperative and postoperative main curve Cobb (MCC), secondary curve Cobb (SCC), fractional curve Cobb (FCC), and L5 tilt. RESULTS:Ninety-nine patients participated (49 in 2RVBT, 50 in PSF). Preoperatively, secondary CC differed significantly (2RVBT: 44.6±10.4 degrees vs. PSF: 39.5±11.8 degrees, P=0.026), but not L5 tilt, MCC, or FCC. Postoperatively, MCC (2RVBT: 25.7±12.3 degrees vs. PSF: 19.5±7.4 degrees, P=0.003) and SCC (2RVBT: 18.0±8.4 degrees vs. PSF: 14.5±6.6 degrees, P=0.012) varied. Preoperative to postoperative changes in MCC (2RVBT: -32.0±11.3 degrees vs. PSF: -37.2±13.3 degrees, P=0.044) and L5 tilt (-13.8±9.0 degrees vs. PSF: -8.1±6.8 degrees, P=0.001) differed. Revision rates were similar (2RVBT: 2.0%, PSF: 4.0%, P=0.57). In 2RVBT, 3 tethers broke, 1 revision occurred for a broken tether, and 1 pleural effusion needed thoracocentesis. In PSF, 1 superficial infection needed surgery, and 1 revision was for add-on phenomenon. After PSM for Lenke classification, 54 patients remained (27 in each group). At 2 years, 2RVBT showed less MCC correction (-30.8±11.8 degrees vs. -38.9±11.9 degrees, P=0.017), but greater L5 tilt correction (-14.6±10.0 degrees vs. -7.5±6.0 degrees, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:This study with a minimum 2-year radiographic follow-up demonstrates that 2RVBT results in greater L5 tilt correction when compared with posterior spinal fusion after PSM for Lenke classification and similar rates of revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.