Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without repositioning. To date, studies evaluating the P-LLIF have been small single surgeon series. This multicentre retrospective cohort examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF againsttraditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning in patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion surgery. PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position P-LLIF technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 101 patients undergoing revision circumferential fusion with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch and segmental lumbar lordosis.
METHOD(S): A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed from 4 institutions from the USA and Australia of patients undergoing revision anterior-posterior lumbar fusion via either: 1) single-position prone LLIF (P-LLIF); or 2) lateral decubitus LLIF with repositioning to prone (L-LLIF) between January 2015 and November 2021. Patients with greater than 4 levels fused were excluded. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at p<0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 101 patients undergoing revision lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs 2.66 L-LLIF, p=0.469) and interbody levels fused (1.23 P-LLIF vs 1.25 L-LLIF, p=0.838) were similar between groups. Levels decompressed, posterior column osteotomy and anterior column release were similar between groups. Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group compared to the L-LLIF group (151 vs 206 min, p=0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150 mL P-LLIF vs 182 mL L-LLIF, p=0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay (2.7 vs 3.3 days, p=0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in perioperative or postoperative complications between P-LLIF and L-LLIF groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment as measured by lumbar lordosis, PI-LL mismatch, or segmental lumbar lordosis between groups.
CONCLUSION(S): P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency and may reduce length of stay when compared to L-LLIF and repositioning for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prior studies assessed the association between underlying neurological condition and worse outcomes following spinal surgery with recent emphasis of self-reported loss of balance (Imbalance) by Uribe et al. PURPOSE: To investigate if patients with self-reported loss of balance have poorer outcomes following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of prospectively collected database. PATIENT SAMPLE: ASD patients with baseline and 2-year radiographic and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics, radiographic outcomes, complications, and PROM were compared from baseline to 2-year follow up.
METHOD(S): Patients undergoing a long spinal fusion with no prior history of spine surgery were retained. Patients were grouped according to imbalance and unsteady gait. The groups were propensity matched by age, PI-LL, and surgical invasiveness score. Demographics, radiographic, complications and PROM were compared from baseline to 2-year post-op.
RESULT(S): A total of 212 patients were reported (106 patients in each group). The mean age (64 vs 63 years), BMI (27.2 vs 27.0 kg/m2), and gender (76% vs 87% female) were not significantly different for patients with imbalance and without imbalance respectively (all p >0.05). Patients in the imbalance group had a higher Frailty Index Score compared to patients without imbalance (3.74 vs 2.33, p <0.001). At baseline, the sagittal profile for both groups were comparable with regard to PT, PI-LL, and SVA. Patients with loss of balance had a significantly lower thoracic Cobb angle (25.27degree vs 37.45degree, p <0.001) and lumbar Cobb angle (37.03degree vs 45.53degree, p=0.004), although the global coronal alignment was similar (imbalance:41.51 mm vs 34.25 mm, p=0.155). Patients with imbalance had worse PROM measures, including ODI (45.15 vs 36.62), SF-36 Mental Component Score (44.04 vs 51.76), SF-36 Physical Component Score (30.17 vs 35.10), and SRS-22 Mental domain score (3.28 vs 3.80) (p <0.001 for all). Postoperatively, patients with imbalance had less PT correction (-1.45degree vs -3.60degree, p=0.039) for a comparable correction in their PI-LL (-11.93degree vs-15.08degree, p=0.144) by 2-year follow-up. Both groups demonstrated similar improvements in their coronal plane deformity. Imbalance patients had higher rates of radiographic PJK at 2-year follow-up (26.4% vs 14.2%, p=0.026). Furthermore, patients with reported imbalance have significantly higher rate of implant related complications (47.2% vs 34.0%, p=0.05). After controlling for age, baseline sagittal parameters, PI-LL correction and Charlson Comorbidity Index, patients with imbalance had 2.2 times increased odds of sustaining PJK by 2 years.
CONCLUSION(S): Patients with a self-reported loss of balance and unsteady gait have significantly worse baseline frailty and PROMs, represented by poorer mental health and physical function. Although those patients had higher rates of PJK and implant-related complications, surgical intervention significantly improved their quality of life. Despite the improvement, they remained with lower PROMs by 2-year follow-up. Therefore, in the clinic setting and with limited institutional access to Frailty scores, asking patients if they have loss of balance or unsteady gait is a simple yet powerful question which may trigger their preoperative risk stratification and optimization. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Adult cervical deformity (ACD) can have profound impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL). Operative treatment for ACD is associated with high complication rates due to the complexity of surgery and the frailty of the patients affected. Very few studies have focused on outcomes of operative ACD treatment. PURPOSE: To assess whether operative treatment for ACD significantly improves HRQL at minimum 2-yr followup. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter, prospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Operatively treated ACD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Neck Disability Index (NDI), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and numeric rating scale (NRS) for neck and back pain.
METHOD(S): Operatively treated ACD patients were assessed at baseline, standardized follow-up intervals and through direct mailings. Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) included: NDI, mJOA, EQ-5D and NRS for neck and back pain. Complications were classified as perioperative (=30 days) or delayed (>30 days). Analyses focused on patients with minimum 2-yr followup.
RESULT(S): Of 169 ACD patients, the 102 (60%) with minimum 2-yr followup (mean=3.4 yrs, SD=1.9 yrs, range=2 to 8.1 yrs) had a mean age of 62 yrs (SD=11) and 64% were women. Surgical approaches included anterior-only (22.8%), posterior-only (39.6%) and combined (37.6%). The mean numbers of vertebrae fused anteriorly and posteriorly were 4.3 (SD=1.1) and 9.4 (SD=3.4), respectively, with 16% having a 3-column osteotomy. PROMs significantly improved from baseline to last follow-up, including NDI (47.3 to 33.0), mJOA (12.0 to 12.8; for patients with baseline score 0.05). Overall, 58 (56.9%) patients had at least 1 complication, 41 (40.2%) had at least 1 perioperative complication, and 35 (34.3%) had at least 1 delayed complication. The most common complications included dysphagia (18.6%), distal junctional kyphosis (6.9%), instrumentation failure (6.9%), cardiac events (6.9%), dysphonia (4.9%), nerve sensory deficit (3.9%) and respiratory failure (3.9%). For patients with at least 2-yr follow-up, 12 patients underwent a total of 15 reoperations (9 had 1 and 3 had 2). Notably, the 67 patients who did not achieve 2-yr follow-up were similar to study patients based on demographics, comorbidities and baseline PROMs. Reflective of the frailty of this patient population, there were 18 deaths among the 67 patients without minimum 2-yr followup. These deaths occurred between 0.2 and 34.8 months following surgery. Although most occurred at least 6 months after surgery and likely were not directly related to surgery, 4 occurred within 4 months of surgery, including 1 due OSA/narcotics, 1 due to pneumonia, and 2 with unknown causes.
CONCLUSION(S): This multicenter, prospective analysis demonstrates that operative treatment for ACD provides significant improvement of HRQL at minimum 2-yr (mean 3.4-yr) followup. These findings may prove useful for patient counseling in the context of the substantial impact of ACD. Further studies will be needed to assess the long-term durability and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for ACD. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients undergoing surgery risk neurological decline following surgery. However, surgery may be the key in improving outcomes in patients starting with lower extremity motor deficits at baseline (BL). We aim to analyze the improvement in neurological outcomes of ASD patients undergoing spinal reconstruction with BL and 6-week postoperative lower extremity motor scores (LEMS). PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to analyze the improvement in neurological outcomes of adult patients undergoing deformity surgery with baseline abnormal LEMS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter, prospective cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 205 patients were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient and procedural factors that lead to the improvement in neurological outcomes of adult patients undergoing deformity surgery with baseline abnormalLEMS.
METHOD(S): ASD patients ages = 18 were prospectively studied from 2018-2021. All patients underwent an instrumented PSF with a few also having an ASF of the lumbar spine. Patients were dichotomized based on BL LEMS (NML = 50, ABML < 50). The ABNML group was then dichotomized based on whether LEMS improved overall from BL or experienced no change or declined by first postoperative follow-up (PO) and various factors were analyzed and compared using standard statistical tests.
RESULT(S): Of the 205 patients evaluated, 134 (65.4%) were NML and 71 were ABNML (34.3%) at BL. Among the 71 patients with ABML LEMS at BL, 49% (N=35) improved to NML levels, 21% (N=15) improved from BL levels but not to NML, 20% (N=14) remained the same, and 10% (N=7) declined further at 6week PO. Compared to ABNML patients with no change or a decline in LEMS at first PO, patients who improved overall (70%; N=50) had significantly more decompressions performed (86% vs 57%; p=0.0092), and had more PCOs performed intraoperatively (90% vs 62%, p=0.0074). There were no statistical differences between the groups in age, BL LEMS, BMI, total instrumented vertebrae (TIV), EBL, and OR time. Overall, the number of patients with NML LEMS at 6 weeks PO increased by 7.5% (65.4% to 70.2%; p<.0001).
CONCLUSION(S): Seventy percent of patients with ABML LEMS at BL improved their motor strength by the first PO visit, while 30% stayed the same or declined. ABNML patients who improved from BL had significantly more decompressions performed and, surprisingly, more PCOs performed. Interestingly, patient factors between the two groups demonstrated no statistical differences further highlighting that improvement may be influenced by the differences in surgical techniques. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Several studies have suggested that Hounsfield units (HU) in the spine are associated with increased complications for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess whether there exists a threshold for HU that is associated with increased blood loss following ASD surgery. We hypothesize that HU below thresholds on spinal CT are predictive of increased blood loss during surgery and implant complications within 90 days after surgery for ASD. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: ASD patients who had HU measured in the spine were identified from a multicenter database. OUTCOME MEASURES: High Intraoperative blood loss and implant complications within 90 days of surgery.
METHOD(S): HU at L1, upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) and total averages were assessed. Threshold linear regression with Bayesian information criteria was utilized to identify optimal cut-offs for predicting high blood loss (>2100mL, top 25% by volume) or any implant complications within 90 days. Implant complications included loosening, breakage and dislocation of rods or screws. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, osteotomy and levels fused.
RESULT(S): Of 527 patients included, the mean age was 61+/-14. Mean L1 HU was 154.59+/-87, UIV HU was 175.1+/-304, and total average HU was 165+/-168. There were 59 patients with high blood loss (mean 5,026+/-233ml) and 467 with low blood loss (1,331+/-39.5ml). Threshold regression analysis identified that a cut-off of =140.33 was optimal for predicting high blood loss and =99.75 total average HU was optimal for predicting implant complications within 90 days of surgery. On multivariable analysis, L1 HU less than 140 was associated with 1.57x higher odds of high blood loss (P=0.032). Total average HU less than 100 was associated with a 3.6x higher odds of having an implant related failure within 90 days of surgery (P=0.035).
CONCLUSION(S): In this prospective multi-center study, Those with L1 HU=140 had a 1.52x higher odds of high blood loss. Patients with an average HUof =100 have 3.6x higher odds of implant related complication within 90 days of surgery. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prophylaxis usage has been established in literature as an important component of minimizing the risk of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) development. However, literature is scarce on the effects of prophylaxis in patients who have achieved adequate postoperative alignment and those who maintained poor alignment postoperatively. PURPOSE: To investigate how PJK prophylaxis impacts rates of PJK and PJF with and without ideal alignment and the associated cost/cost-effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of a prospective adult thoracolumbar deformity database. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 1,541 patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic alignment, patient-reported outcome measures (ODI), cost per QALY.
METHOD(S): Operative adult spinal deformity patients (scoliosis >20degree, SVA>5cm, PT>25degree, or TK>60degree) with an UIV at L1 or below and available baseline (BL) and 2-year (2Y) radiographic and HRQL data were included. "Matched" and "unmatched" alignment refers to the age-adjusted alignment criteria. PJK prophylaxis was defined by usage of cement, hooks or tethers. PJF was defined as PJK with reoperation. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, accounting for additional costs of prophylaxis when applicable, through estimates from Medicare pay scales for services within a 30-day window, including estimates regarding costs of postoperative complications, outpatient healthcare encounters, revisions and medical related readmissions. QALY was calculated using SF6D.
RESULT(S): A total of 738 ASD patients or below met inclusion criteria (59.9yrs+/-14.0, 79%F, BMI: 27.7 kg/m2 +/-6.0, CCI: 1.8 +/-1.7). Surgically, patients had a mean level fused of 11.1+/-4.4, LOS of 7.9 days+/-4.4, EBL of 1577 mL, operative time of 377 min, with 63% undergoing an osteotomy. Forty percent of patients had PJK prophylaxis. Controlling for age, CCI, BL osteoporosis, levels fused, usage of 3CO, UIV, BL SVA and BL PI-LL, patients who were matched postoperatively in PT, SVA, or PI-LL had lowered PJF rates (OR:.5, 95% CI:.28-.86, p=.01) with prophylaxis. Among those unmatched in either SVA, PILL, or PT by 6W, prophylaxis significantly reduced the rates of PJK and PJF as well (p <0.05). ANCOVA controlling for age, CCI, BL osteoporosis, levels fused, usage of 3CO, UIV, BL SVA and BL PI-LL shows patients with ideal age-adjusted alignment and prophylaxis resulted in a lower cost per QALY by 2Y ($399,948 vs $514,228, p <.001). Similarly, in unmatched patients, prophylaxis resulted in a substantially lower cost per QALY by 2Y ($466,409 vs 672, 024, p <.001), primarily due to decreased costs of reoperation and greater improvements in QALY among prophylaxis cohorts.
CONCLUSION(S): Despite additional surgical cost, optimization of radiographic realignment in conjunction with utilization of proximal junctional failure prophylactic techniques achieves ideal cost utility, predominately due to the minimization of mechanical failure related reoperations. Even among those not achieving optimal alignment, junctional prophylactic measures improved cost utility, emphasizing its critical role of minimization of junctional failures to achieve cost efficiency in adult spinal deformity surgery. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Previous literature has demonstrated the advantages of lateral single position surgery (L-SPS) in the perioperative period; 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: Evaluate the feasibility and safety of L-SPS technique against the conventional FLIP. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multi-center retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary AP (ALIF or LLIF) fusions with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 with minimum 2-year followup at three institutions. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch and segmental lumbar lordosis.
METHOD(S): Patients were grouped as L-SPS 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. 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<0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 442 pts met inclusion, including 352 L-SPS and 90 FLIP pts. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs. 56.9; p= < 0.001) and smoking status (7% vs. 16%; p=0.023) between the L-SPS and FLIP groups. No differences between L-SPS and FLIP were noted in gender (57.4% female vs 57.8% female, p=1.000), BMI (30.0kg/m2 vs 29.3kg/m2; p=0.318). No differences were noted in number of levels fused between L-SPS and FLIP (1.45vs 1.50; p=0.533), proportion including ALIF (38% vs 39%; p=0.809), or the proportion of surgeries including L5-S1 (38%vs 31%; p=0.222). Perioperative outcomes: L-SPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p < 0.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p < 0.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p < 0.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs. 3.61 days; p < 0.001) compared to FLIP. L-SPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9% vs 34.4%; p=0.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in remaining surgical site, neurological, or medical complications between groups. Reoperation: N=no differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%L-SPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=0.125), 90-day (5.1%L-SPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=0.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%L-SPS vs 12.2%FLIP; p=0.441). The most common reason for return to OR was Adjacent Segment Disease, (L-SPS 3.1% vs. FLIP 7.8%; p=0.067). Pseudarthrosis rates were similar between groups (0.0%L-SPS vs. 1.1%FLIP; p=0.204). Radiological Outcomes: no significant differences were noted in rates of radiological fusion (94.3% L-SPS vs 97.8%FLIP; p=0.266) or subsidence (6.9%L-SPS vs 12.2%FLIP; p=0.260). There were no differences noted between L-SPS and FLIP in change in LL from Baseline to 1-year (3.5 vs 2.8; p=0.466) and post-op to 1yr (-0.18 vs -0.51; p=0.777), or in PI-LL from Baseline to 1-year (-3.5 vs -3.2; p=0.835) and from post-op to 1-year (0.71 vs 0.71; 0.998).
CONCLUSION(S): L-SPS improves safety, improves operative efficiency and reduces complications in the perioperative period while maintaining similar efficacy of AP fusion at 2-year followup in treating degenerative lumbar spinal conditions. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Sagittal alignment is integral to a patient's quality of life. Posterior spinal fusion (PSF) is currently the standard for correcting adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Vertebral body tethering (VBT) is a fusionless growth modulating surgical technique used to treat AIS. It relies on the Hueter-Volkmann Law. Indications for this procedure include patients who have coronal curves up to 50degree, growth remaining, and no excessive thoracic kyphosis. VBT has been shown to have good coronal plane deformity correction. There have been fewer examinations of the sagittal effects of VBT. PURPOSE: To determine if VBT is a non-inferior treatment for correction of AIS with regard to sagittal alignment compared to PSF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with AIS who underwent correction surgeries with LIV in the lumbar spine from 2013 to 2021 with pre- and minimum two-year postoperative standing full spine plain films. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sagittal vertical axis (SVA), cervical SVA (cSVA), pelvic tilt (PT), thoracic kyphosis (TK), cervical lordosis (CL), L4-S1 lordosis (L4L), T1 pelvic angle (TPA) and pelvic incidence lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL).
METHOD(S): Radiographic analyses was completed with independent samples t-test with significance set to p <0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 99 patients were included, 49 VBT and 50 PSF. There were no differences in age or levels instrumented between groups. The VBT cohort Lenke class breakdown is 23% 1A, 13% 1C, 31% 3C. 18% 5C, and 15% 6C, while the PSF cohort consisted of 42% 1A, 6% 1B, 2% 2C, 2% 3B, 12% 3C, 2% 5B, 24% 5C, and 10% 6C. At Baseline, the VBT cohort had lower SVA (-0.7mm+/-3.7 vs 2.2mm+/-5.0, p=0.001), CL (-0.9degree+/-18.2 vs 11.6degree+/-12.8, p=0.001), L4-S1 Lordosis (20.7degree+/-16.0 vs 41.6degree+/-10.2, p=0.001), and higher cSVA (3.3mm+/-1.6 vs -0.95mm+/-3.1, p=0.001) than those who were fused. Postoperatively, VBT patients have an overall higher L4-S1 Lordosis (36.0degree+/-10.1vs 18.3degree+/-12.5, p=0.001), cSVA (3.4mm+/-1.4 vs -3.7mm+/-2.1, p=0.001), and lower CL (-4.3degree+/-18.4 vs 7.0degree+/-12.2, p=0.001). The PSF cohort had a larger change in cSVA (2.8mm+/-4.0 vs 0mm+/-1.6, p=0.001) from baseline to 2-year follow-up compared to VBT. No differences in the change of L4-S1 Lordosis (VBT 1.5degree+/-12.3 vs 4.1degree+/-10.9, p=0.3), TPA (VBT -1.6degree+/-6.8 vs -1.4degree+/-8.5, p=0.89), PT (VBT -0.5degree+/-7.8 vs -1.9degree+/-8.5, p=0.42), or PI-LL (0.2degree+/-12.0 vs -0.5degree+/-14.0, p=0.81) were observed.
CONCLUSION(S): VBT and PSF for AIS result in statistically similar changes in sagittal alignment parameters. The fact that we showed similar results comparing sagittal alignment in fusion and VBT groups indicates that VBT is non-inferior from a sagittal perspective. It is important to maintain sagittal alignment when correcting AIS. Future work can examine the long-term effect of VBT on sagittal alignment. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Evidence on long-term maintenance of health status in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients who improve above MCID threshold (MCID+) at 2 years following surgery is limited. PURPOSE: This study aims to: (1) evaluate whether patients who reached MCID+ status at two years postoperatively will maintain MCID+ status at 5 years, (2) identify risk factors associated with maintaining MCID+ status, and (3) Assess whether maintaining MCID+ status at 5 years is associated with satisfaction with surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery with minimum 5-year follow-up who achieved 2-year MCID in ODI were identified. OUTCOME MEASURES: Maintenance of MCID+ status at 5 years for Oswestry Diability Index (ODI).
METHOD(S): Patients who maintained MCID+ status at 5 years and those who did not formed the comparison groups. Multivariable logistic regression, controlling for age, complications after two years and two-year alignment, was used to identify risk factors associated with the inability to maintain MCID+ status. In a separate multivariable logistic regression, whether maintaining MCID+ status was associated with 5-year surgical satisfaction was assessed.
RESULT(S): Of 633 eligible patients, 339 had 5-year data. Of 133 with both 2- and 5-year data, 70 who achieved 2-year MCID in ODI were included. 30% (21) failed to maintain MCID+ status at 5 years. Preoperatively, 33% (23) were narcotic users, 47% (33) were frail and mean surgical invasiveness was 96.6+/-36.02. On multivariable logistic regression, preoperative variables were assessed: CCI > 3 (OR 5.75; p=0.026), ASA grade > 2 (OR 5.25; p=0.015), anemia (OR 19.74; p=0.009), and cancer (OR 6.46; p=0.015) were associated with increased odds of failure to maintain MCID+ status at 5-year follow-up. Patients who failed to maintain MCID+ status at 5 years had a higher odds of being unsatisfied with the surgery (OR 15.66; p=0.001). Frailty and surgical invasiveness had no significant impact on MCID+ status at 5 years.
CONCLUSION(S): Preoperative comorbid conditions significantly impact patient's long-term ability to maintain the positive gains in health-related quality of life measures from the surgery. Surgeons should continue to monitor and treat the chronic conditions to ensure maintenance of long-term recovery. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Previous reports indicate postoperative complications have minimal impact on long-term outcomes after ASD surgery. Little data has evaluated the impact of complications on specific heath domains during postoperative period. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of specific complications on patient reported health domains compared to patients with no complications. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective, multicenter, propensity score matched analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: ASD patients enrolled into a prospective multi-center study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Disability Index, Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire (SRS-22r), Short Form-36v2 questionnaire (SF-36), postoperative complications.
METHOD(S): Surgically treated ASD patients enrolled into a multicenter study were assessed for postoperative complications requiring surgery including wound (WOUND), pseudoarthrosis (PSEUDO), neurologic (NEURO) and malalignment (MAL) and matched to patients with no complications (NOCOMP) using inverse probability weighting for demographic, radiographic and surgical variables. Health domains for SRS-22r, and SF-36 were evaluated at regular time intervals, domain scores normalized to the date of revision surgery, and compared to patients with no complications at minimum 2-year follow-up.
RESULT(S): A total of 566 of 1130 were analyzed, average 3.6 yrs (range: 1.9 to 9). WOUND (n=12) compared to NOCOMP (n=390) had worse SF-36 physical function(21.7 vs 27.4), social function(19.6 vs 28.9), general health (-7.3 vs 8.9) and vitality (-0.9 vs 26.6,p < 0.05). PSEUDO (n=64) was worse than NOCOMP for SRS-22r function, 1.4 vs 2.1, and SF-36 social function, (17.1 vs 28.9) (p < 0.05). NEURO (n=28) was worse than NOCOMP for SRS-22r (0.9 vs 2.1), SF-36 bodily pain (14.7 vs 35.7) and social function (13.4 vs 28.9) (p < 0.05). MAL (n=72) was worse than NOCOMP for SRS-22r pain, (2.7 vs 3.4), function (1.2 vs 2.1), self-image (3.0 vs 3.9), SF-36 bodily pain (27.6 vs 35.7), physical function (18.7 vs 27.4), and social function (11.6 vs 28.9) (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION(S): Counter to previous reports, specific postoperative complications requiring surgery uniquely impact specific health domains, resulting in worse patient reported quality of life compared to ASD patients with no complications. Social function was negatively impacted for all complications, while wound complications negatively impacted patient perceived general health and vitality and patients with malalignment requiring surgery reported worse self-image. These data highlight new findings that postoperative complications have a negative impact on specific aspects of ASD quality of life that can undermine the potential benefits of ASD surgery. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright