Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Survey. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:To characterize national practices of and shortcomings surrounding intraoperative assessments of spinal alignment. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Spine surgeons in the US were surveyed to analyze their experience with assessing spinal alignment intraoperatively. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:8.8 years of surgical experience completed the survey. To assess alignment intraoperatively, 84% (91/108) use C-arm or spot radiographs, 40% (43/108) use full-length radiographs, and 20% utilize the T-bar (22/108). 88% of respondents' surgical centers (93/106) possessed a navigation camera and 63% of respondents (68/108) report using surgical navigation for 40% of their deformity cases on average. Reported deterrents for using current technology to assess alignment were workflow interruption (54%, 58/108), expense (33%, 36/108), and added radiation exposure (26%, 28/108). 87% of respondents (82/94) reported a need for improvement in current capabilities of making intraoperative assessments of spinal alignment. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Corrective surgery for spinal deformity is a complex procedure that requires a high level of expertise to perform safely. The majority of surveyed surgeons primarily rely on radiographs for intraoperative assessments of alignment. Despite the majority of surveyed surgical practices possessing navigation cameras, they are utilized only for a minority of spinal deformity cases. With the majority of surveyed surgeons reporting a need for improvement in technology to assess spinal alignment intraoperatively, 3 of the top design considerations should include workflow interruption, expense, and radiation exposure.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Investigate a composite score to evaluate the relationship between alignment proportionality and risk of distal junctional kyphosis (DJK). METHODS:84 patients with minimum 1 year follow-up were included (age = 61.1 ± 10.3 years, 64.3% women). The Cervical Score was constructed using offsets from age-adjusted normative values for sagittal vertical axis (SVA), T1 Slope (TS), and TS minus cervical lordosis (CL). Individual points were assigned based on offset with age-adjusted alignment targets and summed to generate the Cervical Score. Rates of mechanical failure (DJK revision or severe DJK [DJK> 20° and ΔDJK> 10°]) were assessed overall and based on Cervical Score. Logistical regressions assessed associations between early radiographic alignment and 1-year failure rate. RESULTS:Mechanical failure rate was 21.4% (N = 18), 10.7% requiring revision. By multivariate logistical regression: 3-month T1S (OR: .935), TS-CL (OR:0.882), and SVA (OR:1.015) were independent predictors of 1-year failure (all P < .05). Cervical Score ranged (-6 to 6), 37.8% of patients between -1 and 1, and 50.0% with 2 or higher. DJK patients had significantly higher Cervical Score (4.1 ± 1.3 vs .6 ± 2.2, P < .001). Patients with a score ≥3 were significantly more likely to develop a failure (71.4%) with OR of 38.55 (95%CI [7.73; 192.26]) and Nagelkerke r2 .524 (P < .001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study developed a composite alignment score predictive of mechanical failures in CD surgery. A score ≥3 at 3 months following surgery was associated with a marked increase in failure rate. The Cervical Score can be used to analyze sagittal alignment and help define realignment objectives to reduce mechanical failure.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:Determine whether screws per level and rod material/diameter are associated with incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:PJF is a common and particularly adverse complication of adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. There is evidence that the rigidity of posterior spinal constructs may impact risk of PJF. METHODS:Patients with ASD and 2-year minimum follow-up were included. Only patients undergoing primary fusion of more than or equal to five levels with lower instrumented vertebrae (LIV) at the sacro-pelvis were included. Screws per level fused was analyzed with a cutoff of 1.8 (determined by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis). Multivariable logistic regression was utilized, controlling for age, body mass index (BMI), 6-week postoperative change from baseline in lumbar lordosis, number of posterior levels fused, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, approach, osteotomy, upper instrumented vertebra (UIV), osteoporosis, preoperative TPA, and pedicle screw at the UIV (as opposed to hook, wire, etc.). RESULTS:In total, 504 patients were included. PJF occurred in 12.7%. The mean screws per level was 1.7, and 56.8% of patients had less than 1.8 screws per level. No differences were observed between low versus high screw density groups for T1-pelvic angle or magnitude of lordosis correction (both P > 0.15). PJF occurred in 17.0% versus 9.4% of patients with more than or equal to 1.8 versus less than 1.8 screws per level, respectively (P < 0.05). In multivariable analysis, patients with less than 1.8 screws per level exhibited lower odds of PJF (odds ratio (OR) 0.48, P < 0.05), and a continuous variable for screw density was significantly associated with PJF (OR 3.87 per 0.5 screws per level, P < 0.05). Rod material and diameter were not significantly associated with PJF (both P > 0.1). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among ASD patients undergoing long-segment primary fusion to the pelvis, the risk of PJF was lower among patients with less than 1.8 screws per level. This finding may be related to construct rigidity. Residual confounding by other patient and surgeon-specific characteristics may exist. Further biomechanical and clinical studies exploring this relationship are warranted.Level of Evidence: 3.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected multicenter registry data. OBJECTIVE:To identify rates and timing of postoperative complications in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients, the impact of complication type and timing on health related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes, and the impact of complication timing on readmission and reoperation rates. Better understanding of complication timing and impact on HRQoL may improve patient selection, preoperative counseling, and postoperative complication surveillance. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:ASD is common and associated with significant disability. Surgical correction is often pursued, but is associated with high complication rates. The International Spine Study Group, AO Spinal Deformity Forum, and European Spine Study Group have developed a new complication classification system for ASD (ISSG-AO spine complications classification system). METHODS:The ISSG-AO spine complications classification system was utilized to assess complications occurring over the 2-year postoperative time period amongst a multicenter, prospectively enrolled cohort of patients who underwent surgery for ASD. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were established for each complication type. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline disability and comorbidities. Associations between each complication type and HRQoL, and reoperation/readmission and complication timing, were assessed. RESULTS:Of 584 patients meeting inclusion criteria, cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, infection, early adverse events, and operative complications contributed to a rapid initial decrease in complication-free survival. Implant-related, radiographic, and neurologic complications substantially decreased long-term complication-free survival. Only radiographic and implant-related complications were significantly associated with worse 2-year HRQoL outcomes. Need for readmission and/or reoperation was most frequent among those experiencing complications after postoperative day 90. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Surgeons should recognize that long-term complications have a substantial negative impact on HRQoL, and should carefully monitor for implant-related and radiographic complications over long-term follow-up.Level of Evidence: 4.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion utilizing anterior lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous posterior fixation is a novel, minimally invasive surgical technique. Single position lumbar surgery (SPLS) with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been shown to be a safe, effective technique. This study directly compares perioperative outcomes of SPLS with lateral ALIF vs. traditional supine ALIF with repositioning (FLIP) for degenerative pathologies. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine if SPLS with lateral ALIF improves perioperative outcomes compared to FLIP with supine ALIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:Patients undergoing primary AP fusions with ALIF at 5 institutions from 2015 to 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Levels fused, inclusion of L4-L5, L5-S1, radiation dosage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and PI-LL mismatch. METHODS:Retrospective analysis of primary ALIFs with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L4-S1 over 5 years at 5 institutions. Patients were grouped as FLIP or SPLS. Demographic, procedural, perioperative, and radiographic outcome measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p <.05. Cohorts were propensity-matched for demographic or procedural differences. RESULTS:A total of 321 patients were included; 124 SPS and 197 Flip patients. Propensity-matching yielded 248 patients: 124 SPLS and 124 FLIP. The SPLS cohort demonstrated significantly reduced operative time (132.95±77.45 vs. 261.79±91.65 min; p <0.001), EBL (120.44±217.08 vs. 224.29±243.99 mL; p <.001), LOS (2.07±1.26 vs. 3.47±1.40 days; p <.001), and rate of perioperative ileus (0.00% vs. 6.45%; p =.005). Radiation dose (39.79±31.66 vs. 37.54±35.85 mGy; p =.719) and perioperative complications including vascular injury (1.61% vs. 1.61%; p =.000), retrograde ejaculation (0.00% vs. 0.81%, p =.328), abdominal wall (0.81% vs. 2.42%; p =.338), neuropraxia (1.61% vs. 0.81%; p =.532), persistent motor deficit (0.00% vs. 1.61%; p =.166), wound complications (1.61% vs. 1.61%; p =.000), or VTE (0.81% vs. 0.81%; p =.972) were similar. No difference was seen in 90-day return to OR. Similar results were noted in sub-analyses of single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 fusions. On radiographic analysis, the SPLS cohort had greater changes in LL (4.23±11.14 vs. 0.43±8.07 deg; p =.005) and PI-LL mismatch (-4.78±8.77 vs. -0.39±7.51 deg; p =.002). CONCLUSIONS:Single position lateral ALIF with percutaneous posterior fixation improves operative time, EBL, LOS, rate of ileus, and maintains safety compared to supine ALIF with prone percutaneous pedicle screws between L4-S1.

Abundant literature exists describing the incidence of dysphagia following anterior cervical surgery; however, there is a paucity of literature detailing the incidence of dysphagia following posterior cervical procedures. Further characterization of this complication is important for guiding clinical prevention and management. Patients ≥ 18 years of age underwent posterior cervical fusion with laminectomy or laminoplasty between C1-T1. Pre- and post-operative dysphagia was assessed by a speech language pathologist. The patient cohort was categorized by approach: Laminectomy + Fusion (LF) and Laminoplasty (LP). Patients were excluded from radiographic analyses if they did not have both baseline and follow-up imaging. The study included 147 LF and 47 LP cases. There were no differences in baseline demographics. There were three patients with new-onset dysphagia in the LF group (1.5% incidence) and no new cases in the LP group (p = 1.000). LF patients had significantly higher rates of post-op complications (27.9% LF vs. 8.5% LP, p = 0.005) but not intra-op complications (6.1% LF vs. 2.1% LP, p = 0.456). Radiographic analysis of the entire cohort showed no significant changes in cervical lordosis, cSVA, or T1 slope. Both group comparisons showed no differences in incidence of dysphagia pre and post operatively. Based on this study, the likelihood of developing dysphagia after LF or LP are similarly low with a new onset dysphagia rate of 1.5%.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:We hypothesized that adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery would be associated with improved work- and school-related productivity, as well as decreased rates of absenteeism. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:ASD patients experience markedly decreased health-related quality of life along many dimensions. METHODS:Only patients eligible for 2-year follow-up were included, and those with a history of previous spinal fusion were excluded. The primary outcome measures in this study were SRS-22r questions 9 and 17. A repeated measures mixed linear regression was used to analyze responses over time among patients managed operatively (OP) vs. non-operatively (NON-OP). RESULTS:In total, 1,188 patients were analyzed. 66.6% were managed operatively. At baseline, the mean percentage of activity at work/school was 56.4% (SD 35.4%), and the mean days off from work/school over the past 90 days was 1.6 (SD 1.8). Patients undergoing ASD surgery exhibited an 18.1% absolute increase in work/school productivity at 2-year follow-up vs. baseline (p < 0.0001), while no significant change was observed for the non-operative cohort (p > 0.5). Similarly, the OP cohort experienced 1.1 fewer absent days over the past 90 days at 2 years vs. baseline (p < 0.0001), while the NON-OP cohort showed no such difference (p > 0.3). These differences were largely preserved after stratifying by baseline employment status, age group, SVA, PI-LL, and deformity curve type. CONCLUSIONS:ASD patients managed operatively exhibited an average increase in work/school productivity of 18.1% and decreased absenteeism of 1.1 per 90 days at 2-year follow-up, while patients managed non-operatively did not exhibit change from baseline. Given the age distribution of patients in this study, these findings should be interpreted as pertaining primarily to obligations at work or within the home. Further study of the direct and indirect economic benefits of ASD surgery to patients is warranted.Level of Evidence: 3.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study of a prospectively collected multi-center database of adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. OBJECTIVE:We hypothesized that patients undergoing ASD surgery with and without previous spinal cord stimulators (SCS)/ intrathecal medication pumps (ITP) would exhibit increased complication rates but comparable improvement in health-related quality of life. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:ASD patients sometimes seek pain management with SCS or ITP before spinal deformity correction. Few studies have examined outcomes in this patient population. METHODS:Patients undergoing ASD surgery and eligible for 2-year follow-up were included. Preoperative radiographs were reviewed for the presence of SCS/ITP. Outcomes included complications, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-36 Mental Component Score, and SRS-22r. Propensity score matching was utilized. RESULTS:In total, of 1034 eligible ASD patients, a propensity score-matched cohort of 60 patients (30 with SCS/ITP, 30 controls) was developed. SCS/ITP were removed intraoperatively in most patients (56.7%, n = 17). The overall complication rate was 80.0% versus 76.7% for SCS/ITP versus control (P > 0.2), with similarly nonsignificant differences for intraoperative and infection complications (all P > 0.2). ODI was significantly higher among patients with SCS/ITP at baseline (59.2 vs. 47.6, P = 0.0057) and at 2-year follow-up (44.4 vs. 27.7, P = 0.0295). The magnitude of improvement, however, did not significantly differ (P = 0.45). Similar results were observed for SRS-22r pain domain. Satisfaction did not differ between groups at either baseline or follow-up (P > 0.2). No significant difference was observed in the proportion of patients with SCS/ITP versus control reaching minimal clinically important difference in ODI (47.6% vs. 60.9%, P = 0.38). Narcotic usage was more common among patients with SCS/ITP at both baseline and follow-up (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:ASD patients undergoing surgery with SCS/ITP exhibited worse preoperative and postoperative ODI and SRS-22r pain domain; however, the mean improvement in outcome scores was not significantly different from patients without stimulators or pumps. No significant differences in complications were observed between patients with versus without SCS/ITP.Level of Evidence: 3.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected multicenter registry data. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine whether surgical variables and complications as graded by treatment severity impact postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Surgical treatment can substantially improve quality of life for patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). However, surgical treatment is associated with high complication rates, which may impact hospital LOS. Classifying complications by severity of subsequent treatment may allow surgeons to better understand complications and predict their impact on important outcome metrics, including LOS. METHODS:Patients enrolled in a multicenter, prospectively enrolled database for ASD were assessed for study inclusion. Complications were graded based on intervention severity. Associations between LOS, complication intervention severity, and surgical variables (fusion length, use of interbody fusion, use of major osteotomy, primary versus revision surgery, same day vs. staged surgery, and surgical approach), were assessed. Two multivariate regression models were constructed to assess for independent associations with LOS. RESULTS:Of 1183 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 708 did not and 475 did experience a perioperative complication during their index hospitalization, with 660 and 436 included in the final cohorts, respectively. Among those with complications, intervention severities included 14.9% with no intervention, 68.6% with minor, 8.9% with moderate, and 7.6% with severe interventions. Multivariate regression modeling demonstrated that length of posterior fusion, use of major osteotomy, staged surgery, and severity of intervention for complications were significantly associated with LOS. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Careful selection of surgical factors may help reduce hospital LOS following surgery for ASD. Classification of complications by treatment severity can help surgeons better understand and predict the implications of complications, in turn assisting with surgical planning and patient counseling.Level of Evidence: 4.

STUDYDESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective-comparative; LOE-3. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect, if any, an institutional opioid reduction prescribing policy following 1-or-2-level lumbar fusion has on Hospital-Consumer-Assessment-of-Healthcare-Providers-and-Systems-(HCAHPS)-survey results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Prior research has demonstrated that high levels of opioid-prescribing may be related, in part, to a desire to produce superior patient satisfaction. METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively-collected data was conducted on patients who underwent 1-or-2-level lumbar fusions L3-S1 between October 2014-October 2019 at a single institution. Patients with complete survey information were included in the analysis. Patients with a history of trauma, fracture, spinal deformity, fusions > 2 levels, or prior lumbar fusion surgery L3-S1 were excluded. Cohorts were based on date of surgery relative to implementation of an institutional opioid reduction policy, which commenced in October 1, 2018. To better compare groups, opioid prescriptions were converted into milligram-morphine-equivalents (MME). RESULTS:330 patients met inclusion criteria, 259 pre-protocol, 71 post-protocol. There were 256 1-level fusions and 74 2-level fusions included. There were few statistically significant differences between groups with respect to patient demographics (p > 0.05) with the exception of number of patients who saw the pain management service, which increased from 36.7%(95) pre-protocol, to 59.2%(42) post-protocol; p < 0.001. Estimated blood loss (EBL) decreased from 533 ± 571 mL to 346 ± 328 mL; p = 0.003. Percentage of patients who underwent concomitant laminectomy decreased from 71.8% to 49.3%; p < 0.001. Average opioids prescribed on discharge in the pre-protocol period was was 534 ± 425 MME, compared to after initiation of the protocol it was 320 ± 174 MME; P < 0.001. There was no statistically significant difference with respect to satisfaction with pain control, 4.49 ± 0.85 pre-protocol vs 4.51 ± 0.82 post-protocol; p = 0.986. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A reduction in opioids prescribed at discharge after 1-or-2-level lumbar fusion is not associated with any statistically significant change in patient satisfaction with pain management, as measured by the HCAHPS survey.Level of Evidence: 3.