Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to use an unsupervised cluster approach to identify patterns of operative adult spinal deformity (ASD) and compare the perioperative outcomes of these groups. METHODS:A multicenter data set included patients with complex surgical ASD, including those with severe deformities, significant surgical complexity, or advanced age who underwent a multilevel fusion. An unsupervised cluster analysis allowing for 10% outliers was used to identify different deformity patterns. The perioperative outcomes of these clusters were then compared using ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square tests, with p values < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS:Two hundred eighty-six patients were classified into four clusters of deformity patterns: hyper-thoracic kyphosis (hyper-TK), severe coronal, severe sagittal, and moderate sagittal. Hyper-TK patients had the lowest disability (mean Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] 32.9 ± 17.1) and pain scores (median numeric rating scale [NRS] back score 6, leg score 1). The severe coronal cluster had moderate functional impairment (mean physical component score 34.4 ± 12.3) and pain (median NRS back score 7, leg score 4) scores. The severe sagittal cluster had the highest levels of disability (mean ODI 49.3 ± 15.6) and low appearance scores (mean 2.3 ± 0.7). The moderate cluster (mean 68.8 ± 7.8 years) had the highest pain interference subscores on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (mean 65.2 ± 5.8). Overall 30-day adverse events were equivalent among the four groups. Fusion to the pelvis was most common in the moderate sagittal (89.4%) and severe sagittal (97.5%) clusters. The severe coronal cluster had more osteotomies per case (median 11, IQR 6.5-14) and a higher rate of 30-day implant-related complications (5.5%). The severe sagittal and hyper-TK clusters had more three-column osteotomies (43% and 32.3%, respectively). Hyper-TK patients had shorter hospital stays. CONCLUSIONS:This cohort of patients with complex ASD surgeries contained four natural clusters of deformity, each with distinct perioperative outcomes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Complex surgery for adult spinal deformity has high rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Preoperative discussions of high-risk operative spine patients at a multidisciplinary conference may contribute to decreased rates of these adverse outcomes through appropriate patient selection and surgical plan optimization. With this goal, we implemented a high-risk case conference involving orthopedic and neurosurgery spine, anesthesia, intraoperative monitoring neurology, and neurological intensive care. METHODS:Included in this retrospective review were patients ≥ 18 years old meeting one of the following high-risk criteria: 8 + levels fused, osteoporosis with 4 + levels fused, three column osteotomy, anterior revision of the same lumbar level, or planned significant correction for severe myelopathy, scoliosis (> 75˚), or kyphosis (> 75˚). Patients were categorized as Before Conference (BC): surgery before 2/19/2019 or After Conference (AC): surgery after 2/19/2019. Outcome measures include intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmissions, and reoperations. RESULTS:263 patients were included (96 AC, 167 BC). AC was older than BC (60.0 vs 54.6, p = 0.025) and had lower BMI (27.1 vs 28.9, p = 0.047), but had similar CCI (3.2 vs 2.9 p = 0.312), and ASA Classification (2.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.790). Surgical characteristics, including levels fused (10.6 vs 10.7, p = 0.839), levels decompressed (1.29 vs 1.25, p = 0.863), 3 column osteotomies (10.4% vs 18.6%, p = 0.080), anterior column release (9.4% vs 12.6%, p = 0.432), and revision cases (53.1% vs 52.4%, p = 0.911) were similar between AC and BC. AC had lower EBL (1.1 vs 1.9L, p < 0.001) and fewer total intraoperative complications (16.7% vs 34.1%, p = 0.002), including fewer dural tears (4.2% vs 12.6%, p = 0.025), delayed extubations (8.3% vs 22.8%%, p = 0.003), and massive blood loss (4.2% vs 13.2%, p = 0.018). Length of stay (LOS) was similar between groups (7.2 vs 8.2 days, 0.251). AC had a lower incidence of deep surgical site infections (SSI, 1.0% vs 6.6%, p = 0.038), but a higher rate of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy (18.8% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). Other postoperative complications were similar between groups. AC had lower rates of reoperation at 30 (2.1% vs 8.4%, p = 0.040) and 90 days (3.1 vs 12.0%, p = 0.014) and lower readmission rates at 30 (3.1% vs 10.2%, p = 0.038) and 90 days (6.3 vs 15.0%, p = 0.035). On logistic regression, AC patients had higher odds of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy and lower odds of delayed extubation, intraoperative RBC, and intraoperative salvage blood. CONCLUSIONS:Following implementation of a multidisciplinary high-risk case conference, 30- and 90-day reoperation and readmission rates, intraoperative complications, and postoperative deep SSIs decreased. Hypotensive events requiring vasopressors increased, but did not result in longer LOS or greater readmissions. These associations suggest a multidisciplinary conference may help improve quality and safety for high-risk spine patients. particularly through minimizing complications and optimizing outcomes in complex spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The advantages of Lateral Single Position surgery (LSPS) in the perioperative period has previously been demonstrated, however 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSPS versus gold-standard FLIP STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multi-center retrospective cohort review. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:Four hundred forty- two patients undergoing lumbar fusion via LSPS or FLIP OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, and reasons for reoperation at 30-days, 90-days, 1-year, and 2-years. Radiographic outcomes included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch, and segmental lumbar lordosis. METHODS:Patients were grouped as LSPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure under the same anesthetic. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2-years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<.05. RESULTS:Four hundred forty- two pts met inclusion, including 352 LSPS and 90 FLIP pts. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs 56.9; p≤.001) and smoking status (7% vs 16%; p=.023) between the LSPS and FLIP groups. LSPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p<.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p<.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p<.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs 3.61 days; p<.001) compared to FLIP. LSPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9%vs 34.4%; p=.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p<.001). No differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%LSPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=.125), 90-day (5.1%LSPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.441). LSPS group had a significantly lower preoperative PI-LL (4.1° LSPS vs 8.6°FLIP, p=.018), and a significantly greater postoperative LL (56.6° vs 51.8°, p = .006). No significant differences were noted in rates of fusion (94.3% LSPS vs 97.8% FLIP; p=.266) or subsidence (6.9% LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.260). CONCLUSIONS:LSPS and circumferential fusions have similar outcomes at 2-years post-operatively, while reducing perioperative complications, improving perioperative efficiency and safety.

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospective database. Objectives: Vertebral pelvic angles (VPAs) account for complexity in spine shape by assessing the relative position of each vertebra with regard to the pelvis. This study uses VPAs to investigate the shape of the fused spine after T10-pelvis fusion, in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD), and then explores its association with proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). Methods: Included patients had radiographic evidence of ASD and underwent T10-pelvis realignment. VPAs were used to construct a virtual shape of the post-operative spine. VPA-predicted and actual shapes were then compared between patients with and without PJK. Logistic regression was used to identify components of the VPA-based model that were independent predictors of PJK occurrence and post-operative shape. Results: 287 patients were included. VPA-predicted shape was representative of the true post-operative contour, with a mean point-to-point error of 1.6-2.9% of the T10-S1 spine length. At 6-weeks follow-up, 102 patients (35.5%) developed PJK. Comparison of the true post-operative shapes demonstrated that PJK patients had more posteriorly translated vertebrae from L3 to T7 (P <.001). Logistic regression demonstrated that L3PA (P =.047) and T11PA (P <.001) were the best independent predictors of PJK and were, in conjunction with pelvic incidence, sufficient to reproduce the actual spinal contour (error <3%). Conclusions: VPAs are reliable in reproducing the true, post-operative spine shape in patients undergoing T10-pelvis fusion for ASD. Because VPAs are independent of patient position, L3PA, T11PA, and PI measurements can be used for both pre- and intra-operative planning to ensure optimal alignment.

ABSTRACT/UNASSIGNED:Rigoletto, composed by Giuseppe Verdi, is one of the most commonly performed operas around the world. At the time of its 1851 premiere in Venice, the work was remarkable for its portrayal of a main character with a spinal deformity. Through the music of Rigoletto, Verdi explored the societal tensions surrounding physical deformity in the 19th century, providing valuable lessons about the importance of approaching patient care with compassion and empathy in the present day.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE:Assess whether modifying spinal alignment goals to accommodate frailty considerations will decrease mechanical complications and maximize clinical outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:The Global Alignment and Proportion(GAP) score was developed to assist in reducing mechanical complications, but has had less success predicting such events in external validation. Higher frailty and many of its components have been linked to development of implant failure. Therefore, modifying the GAP score with frailty may strengthen its ability to predict mechanical complications. METHODS:We included 412 surgical ASD patients with two-year(2Y) follow-up. Frailty was quantified using the ASD modified Frailty Index(mASD-FI). Outcomes: proximal junctional kyphosis(PJK) and failure(PJF), major mechanical complications, and 'Best Clinical Outcome'(BCO), defined as ODI<15 and SRS-22 Total>4.5. Logistic regression analysis established a six-week score based on GAP score,frailty and ODI US-Norms. Logistic regression followed by conditional inference tree(CIT) analysis generated categorical thresholds. Multivariable logistic regression analysis controlling for confounders was used to assess the performance of the frailty modified GAP score. RESULTS:Baseline frailty categories: 57% Not Frail,30% frail,14% severely frail. Overall, 39% of patients developed PJK, 8% PJF, 21% mechanical complications, 22% underwent reoperation, and 15% met BCO. The modified ASD-FI demonstrated correlation with developing PJF, mechanical complications, undergoing reoperation, and meeting BCO at 2Y(all P<0.05). Regression analysis generated the following equation: Frailty-Adjusted Realignment Score(FAR Score) =0.49*mASD-FI + 0.38*GAP Score. Thresholds for the FAR score(0-13): Proportioned:<3.5,Moderately Disproportioned:3.5-7.5,Severely Disproportioned:>7.5. Multivariable logistic regression assessing FAR Score demonstrated associations with mechanical complications, reoperation, and meeting Best Clinical Outcome by two years(all P<0.05), whereas the original GAP score was only significant for reoperation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated adjusting alignment goals in adult spinal deformity surgery for a patient's baseline frailty status and disability may be useful in minimizing the risk of complications and adverse events, outperforming the original GAP score in terms of prognostic capacity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

BACKGROUND:Patients with less severe adult spinal deformity undergo surgical correction and often achieve good clinical outcomes. However, it is not well understood how much clinical improvement is due to sagittal correction rather than treatment of the spondylotic process. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Determine baseline thresholds in radiographic parameters that, when exceeded, may result in substantive clinical improvement from surgical correction. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective. METHODS:ASD patients with BL and 2-year(2Y) data were included. Parameters assessed: SVA, PI-LL, PT, T1PA, L1PA, L4-S1 Lordosis, C2-C7 SVA(cSVA), C2-T3, C2 Slope(C2S). Outcomes: Good Outcome(GO) at 2Y: [Meeting either: 1) SCB for ODI(change greater than 18.8), or 2) ODI<15 and SRS-Total>4.5. Binary logistic regression assessed each parameter to determine if correction was more likely needed to achieve GO. Conditional inference tree(CIT) run machine learning analysis generated baseline thresholds for each parameter, above which, correction was necessary to achieve GO. RESULTS:We included 431 ASD patients. There were 223(50%) that achieved a GO by two years. Binary logistic regression analysis demonstrated, with increasing baseline severity in deformity, sagittal correction was more often seen in those achieving GO for each parameter(all P<0.001). Of patients with baseline T1PA above the threshold, 95% required correction to meet Good Outcome(95% vs. 54%,P<0.001). A baseline PI-LL above 10° (74% of patients meeting GO) needed correction to achieve GO (OR: 2.6,[95% CI 1.4-4.8]). A baseline C2 slope above 15° also necessitated correction to obtain clinical success (OR: 7.7,[95% CI 3.7-15.7]). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study highlighted point may be present at which sagittal correction has an outsized influence on clinical improvement, reflecting the line where deformity becomes a significant contributor to disability. These new thresholds give us insight into which patients may be more suitable for sagittal correction, as opposed to intervention for the spondylotic process only, leading to a more efficient utility of surgical intervention for adult spinal deformity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of a cervical deformity database. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to develop a model that can predict the postoperative DJK angle by using pre and post-operative radiographic measurements. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Distal junctional kyphosis (DJK) is a complication following cervical deformity correction that can reduce of patient quality of life and functional status. Although researchers have identified the risk factors for DJK, no model has been proposed to predict the magnitude of DJK. METHODS:The DJK angle was defined as the Cobb angle from LIV to LIV-2 with traditional DJK (tDJK) having a DJK angle change >10°. Models were trained using 66.6% of the randomly selected patients and validated in the remaining 33.3%. Pre-and post-operative radiographic parameters associated with DJK were identified and ranked using a conditional variable importance table. Linear regression models were developed using the factors most strongly associated with the postoperative DJK angle. RESULTS:131 patients were included with a mean follow-up duration of 14±8 months. The mean postoperative DJK angle was 14.6±14° and occurred in 35% of the patients. No significant differences between the training and validation cohort were observed. The variables most associated with post-operative DJK were: preoperative DJK angle (DJKApre), postoperative C2- lower Instrumented vertebral tilt (C2-LIV), and change in cervical lordosis (∆CL). The model identified the following equation as predictive of DJKA: DJKA=9.365 + (0.123*∆CL) - (0.315* ∆C2-LIV) - (0.054*DJKApre). The predicted and actual postoperative DJKA values were highly correlated (R=0.871, R2=0.759, P<0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The variables that most increased the DJK angle were the preoperative DJK angle, postoperative alignment within the construct, and change in CL. Future studies can build upon the model developed to be applied in a clinical setting when planning for cervical deformity correction.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Despite adequate correction, the pelvis may fail to readjust, deemed pelvic non-response. To assess alignment outcomes(pelvic non-response[PNR], PJK, postoperative cervical deformity[CD]) following ASD surgery utilizing different realignment strategies. METHODS:ASD patients with 2-year(2Y) data were included. PNR defined as undercorrected in age-adjusted pelvic tilt(PT) at 6W and maintained at 2Y. Patients classified by alignment utilities: [a] Improvement in SRS-Schwab SVA,[b] Matching in age-adjusted PI-LL,[c] Matching in Roussouly,[d] aligning Global Alignment and Proportionality(GAP) score. Multivariable regression analyses, controlling for age, baseline deformity, and surgical factors, assessed rates of PNR, PJK, and CD development following realignment. RESULTS:686 patients met inclusion criteria. Rates of postop PJK and CD were not significant in the PNR group(both P>0.15). PNR patients less often met substantial clinical benefit in ODI by 2Y(OR: 0.6,[0.4-0.98]). Patients overcorrected in age-adjusted PI-LL, matching Roussouly, or proportioned in GAP at 6W had lower rates of PNR(all P<0.001). Incremental addition of classifications led to 0% occurrence of PNR, PJK and CD. Stratifying by baseline PT severity, Low and Moderate deformity demonstrated the least incidence of PNR(7.7%) when proportioning in GAP at 6W, while severe PT benefited most from matching in Roussouly(all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Following ASD corrective surgery, 24.9% of patients showed residual pelvic malalignment. This occurrence was often accompanied by undercorrection of lumbopelvic mismatch and less improvement of pain. However, overcorrection in any strategy incurred higher rates of PJK. We recommend surgeons identify a middle ground using one, or more, of the available classifications to inform correction goals in this regard. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of outcomes in cervical spine and shoulder arthroscopy patients. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to assess differential improvements in health-related quality of life for cervical spine surgery compared with shoulder surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:An understanding of outcome differences between different types of orthopedic surgeries is helpful in counseling patients about expected postoperative recovery. This study compares outcomes in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery with arthroscopic shoulder surgery using computer-adaptive Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients undergoing cervical spine surgery (1-level or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement) or arthroscopic shoulder surgery (rotator cuff repair±biceps tenodesis) were grouped. Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS:Cervical spine (n=127) and shoulder (n=91) groups were similar in sex (25.8% vs. 41.8% female, P=0.731) but differed in age (51.6±11.6 vs. 58.60±11.2, P<0.05), operative time (148.3±68.6 vs. 75.9±26.9 min, P<0.05), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.0±0.5, P=0.001), smoking status (15.7% vs. 4.4%, P=0.008), and length of stay (1.1±1.0 vs. 0.3±0.1, P=0.000). Spine patients had worse physical function (36.9 ±12.6 vs. 49.4±8.6, P<0.05) and greater pain interference (67.0±13.6 vs. 61.7±4.8, P=0.001) at baseline. Significant improvements were seen in all domains by 3 months for both groups, except for physical function after shoulder surgery. Spine patients had greater physical function improvements at all timepoints (3.33 vs. -0.43, P=0.003; 4.81 vs. 0.08, P=0.001; 6.5 vs. -5.24, P=<0.05). Conversely, shoulder surgery patients showed better 6-month improvement in pain intensity over spine patients (-8.86 vs. -4.46, P=0.001), but this difference resolved by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS:Cervical spine patients had greater relative early improvement in physical function compared with shoulder patients, whereas pain interference and intensity did not significantly differ between the 2 groups after surgery. This will help in counseling patients about relative difference in recovery and improvement between the 2 surgery types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.