Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

Adult cervical deformity is a structural malalignment of the cervical spine that may present with variety of significant symptomatology for patients. There are clear and substantial negative impacts of cervical spine deformity, including the increased burden of pain, limited mobility and functionality, and interference with patients' ability to work and perform everyday tasks. Primary cervical deformities develop as the result of a multitude of different etiologies, changing the normal mechanics and structure of the cervical region. In particular, degeneration of the cervical spine, inflammatory arthritides and neuromuscular changes are significant players in the development of disease. Additionally, cervical deformities, sometimes iatrogenically, may present secondary to malalignment or correction of the thoracic, lumbar or sacropelvic spine. Previously, classification systems were developed to help quantify disease burden and influence management of thoracic and lumbar spine deformities. Following up on these works and based on the relationship between the cervical and distal spine, Ames-ISSG developed a framework for a standardized tool for characterizing and quantifying cervical spine deformities. When surgical intervention is required to correct a cervical deformity, there are advantages and disadvantages to both anterior and posterior approaches. A stepwise approach may minimize the drawbacks of either an anterior or posterior approach alone, and patients should have a surgical plan tailored specifically to their cervical deformity based upon symptomatic and radiographic indications. This state-of-the-art review is based upon a comprehensive overview of literature seeking to highlight the normal cervical spine, etiologies of cervical deformity, current classification systems, and key surgical techniques.

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.

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.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the impact of correcting to normative segmental lordosis values on post-operative outcomes. BACKGROUND:Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remains unclear. METHODS:Patients were grouped based on offset to normative segmental lordosis values, extracted from recent publications. Matched patients were within 10% of the cohort's mean offset, less than or over 10% were under- and over-corrected. Surgical technique, PROMs, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and 2-year. RESULTS:510 patients with an average age of 64.6, mean CCI 2.08, and average follow-up of 25 months. L4-5 was least likely to be matched (19.1%), while L4-S1 was the most likely (24.3%). More patients were overcorrected at proximal levels (T10-L2; Undercorrected, U: 32.2% vs. Matched, M: 21.7% vs. Overcorrected, O: 46.1%) and undercorrected at distal levels (L4-S1: U: 39.0% vs. M: 24.3% vs. O: 36.8%). Postoperative ODI was comparable across correction groups at all spinal levels except at L4-S1 and T10-L2/L4-S1, where overcorrected patients and matched were better than undercorrected (U: 32.1 vs. M: 25.4 vs. O: 26.5, P=0.005; U: 36.2 vs. M: 24.2 vs. O: 26.8, P=0.001; respectively). Patients overcorrected at T10-L2 experienced higher rates of proximal junctional failure (PJF) (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P<0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) (U: -9.2±9.4° vs. M: -9.6±9.1° vs. O: -12.2±10.0°, P<0.001), whereas undercorrection at these levels led to higher rates of revision for implant failure (U: 14.2% vs. M: 7.3% vs. O: 6.4%, P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing fusion for adult spinal deformity suffer higher rates of PJF with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

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/METHODS:Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE:Evaluate surgical characteristics and postoperative 2-year results of the PL approach to spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Prone-lateral(PL) single positioning has recently gained popularity in spine surgery due to lower blood loss and operative time but has yet to be examined for other notable outcomes, including realignment and patient-reported measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We included circumferential spine fusion patients with a minimum one-year follow-up. Patients were stratified into groups based on undergoing PL approach versus same-day staged (Staged). Mean comparison tests identified differences in baseline parameters. Multivariable logistic regression, controlling for age, levels fused, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were used to determine the influence of the approach on complication rates, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes up to two years. RESULTS:One hundred twenty-two patients were included of which 72(59%) were same-day staged and 50(41%) were PL. PL patients were older with lower body mass index (both P <0.05). Patients undergoing PL procedures had lower estimated blood loss and operative time (both P <0.001), along with fewer osteotomies (63% vs. 91%, P <0.001). This translated to a shorter length of stay (3.8 d vs. 4.9, P =0.041). PL procedures demonstrated better correction in both PT (4.0 vs. -0.2, P =0.033 and pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (-3.7 vs. 3.1, P =0.012). PL procedures were more likely to improve in GAP relative pelvic version (OR: 2.3, [1.5-8.8]; P =0.003]. PL patients suffered lesser complications during the perioperative period and greater improvement in NRS-Back (-6.0 vs. -3.3, P =0.031), with less reoperations (0.0% vs. 4.8%, P =0.040) by two years. CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing PL single-position procedures received less invasive procedures with better correction of pelvic compensation, as well as earlier discharge. The prone lateral cohort also demonstrated greater clinical improvement and a lower rate of reoperations by two years following spinal corrective surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level-III.

BACKGROUND:Previous studies have demonstrated that adult cervical deformity patients may be at increased risk of death in conjunction with increased frailty or a weakened physiologic state. However, such studies have often been limited by follow-up duration, and longer-term studies are needed to better assess temporal changes in ACD patients and associated mortality risk. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess if patients with decreased comorbidities and physiologic burden will be at lessened risk of death for a greater length of time after undergoing adult cervical deformity surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective review PATIENT SAMPLE: Two hundred and ninety ACD Patients OUTCOME MEASURES: Morbidity and mortality data. METHODS:). Within 10Y, 12 (18.2% of ACD cohort) expired. At baseline, patients were comparable in age, gender, BMI, and CCI total on average (all p>.05). Furthermore, patients were comparable in BL HRQLs (all p>.05). However, patients who expired between 5Y and 10Y demonstrated higher BL EQ5D and mJOA scores than their earlier expired counterparts at 2Y (p<.021). Furthermore, patients who presented with no CCI markers at BL were significantly more likely to survive until the 5Y-10Y follow-up window. Surgically, the only differences observed between patients who survived until 5Y was in undergoing osteotomy, with longer survival seen in those who did not require it (p=.003). Logistic regression revealed independent predictors of death prior to 5Y to be increased BMI, increased frailty, and increased levels fused (model p<.001). KM analysis found that by Passias et al. frailty, not frail patients had mean survival time of 170.56 weeks, versus 158.00 in frail patients (p=.949). CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates that long-term survival after cervical deformity surgery may be predicted by baseline surgical factors. By optimizing BMI, frailty status, and minimizing fusion length when appropriate, surgeons may be able to further assist ACD patients in increasing their survivability post-operatively.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective single-center study. BACKGROUND:The global alignment and proportion score is widely used in adult spinal deformity surgery. However, it is not specific to the parameters used in adult cervical deformity (ACD). PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Create a cervicothoracic alignment and proportion (CAP) score in patients with operative ACD. METHODS:Patients with ACD with 2-year data were included. Parameters consisted of relative McGregor's Slope [RMGS = (MGS × 1.5)/0.9], relative cervical lordosis [RCL = CL - thoracic kyphosis (TK)], Cervical Lordosis Distribution Index (CLDI = C2 - Apex × 100/C2 - T2), relative pelvic version (RPV = sacral slope - pelvic incidence × 0.59 + 9), and a frailty factor (greater than 0.33). Cutoff points were chosen where the cross-tabulation of parameter subgroups reached a maximal rate of meeting the Optimal Outcome. The optimal outcome was defined as meeting Good Clinical Outcome criteria without the occurrence of distal junctional failure (DJF) or reoperation. CAP was scored between 0 and 13 and categorized accordingly: ≤3 (proportioned), 4-6 (moderately disproportioned), >6 (severely disproportioned). Multivariable logistic regression analysis determined the relationship between CAP categories, overall score, and development of distal junctional kyphosis (DJK), DJF, reoperation, and Optimal Outcome by 2 years. RESULTS:One hundred five patients with operative ACD were included. Assessment of the 3-month CAP score found a mean of 5.2/13 possible points. 22.7% of patients were proportioned, 49.5% moderately disproportioned, and 27.8% severely disproportioned. DJK occurred in 34.5% and DJF in 8.7%, 20.0% underwent reoperation, and 55.7% achieved Optimal Outcome. Patients severely disproportioned in CAP had higher odds of DJK [OR: 6.0 (2.1-17.7); P =0.001], DJF [OR: 9.7 (1.8-51.8); P =0.008], reoperation [OR: 3.3 (1.9-10.6); P =0.011], and lower odds of meeting the optimal outcome [OR: 0.3 (0.1-0.7); P =0.007] by 2 years, while proportioned patients suffered zero occurrences of DJK or DJF. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The regional alignment and proportion score is a method of analyzing the cervical spine relative to global alignment and demonstrates the importance of maintaining horizontal gaze, while also matching overall cervical and thoracolumbar alignment to limit complications and maximize clinical improvement.