Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:This was a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to delineate radiographic parameters that distinguish severe cervical spine deformity (CSD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Our objective was to define parameters that distinguish severe CSD using a consensus approach combined with discriminant analysis as no system currently exists in the literature. METHODS:Twelve CSD surgeons reviewed preoperative x-rays from a CSD database. A consensus was reached for categorizing patients into a severe cervical deformity (sCD), non-severe cervical deformity (non-sCD), or an indeterminate cohort. Radiographic parameters were found including classic cervical and spinopelvic parameters in neutral/flexion/extension alignment. To perform our discriminant analysis, we selected for parameters that had a significant difference between the sCD and non-sCD groups using the Student t test. A discriminant function analysis was used to determine which variables discriminate between the sCD versus non-sCD. A stepwise analysis was performed to build a model of parameters to delineate sCD. RESULTS:A total of 146 patients with cervical deformity were reviewed (60.5±10.5 y; body mass index: 29.8 kg/m2; 61.3% female). There were 83 (56.8%) classified as sCD and 51 (34.9%) as non-sCD. The comparison analysis led to 16 radiographic parameters that were different between cohorts, and 5 parameters discriminated sCD and non-sCD. These parameters were cervical sagittal vertical axis, T1 slope, maximum focal kyphosis in extension, C2 slope in extension, and number of kyphotic levels in extension. The canonical coefficient of correlation was 0.689, demonstrating a strong association between our model and cervical deformity classification. The accuracy of classification was 87.0%, and cross-validation was 85.2% successful. CONCLUSIONS:More than one third of a series of CSD patients were not considered to have a sCD. Analysis of an initial 17 parameters showed that a subset of 5 parameters can discriminate between sCD versus non-sCD with 85% accuracy. Our study demonstrates that flexion/extension images are critical for defining severe CD.

OBJECTIVE:Hyperextension of C0-2 is a debilitating compensatory mechanism used to maintain horizontal gaze, analogous to high pelvic tilt in the lumbopelvic complex to maintain an upright posture. This study aims to investigate the impact of cervical deformity (CD) correction on this hyperextension. The authors hypothesize that correction of cervical sagittal malalignment allows for relaxation of C0-2 hyperextension and improved clinical outcomes. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted of a multicenter database of patients with CD undergoing spinal realignment and fusion caudal to C2 and cephalad to the pelvis. Range of motion (ROM) and reserve of extension (ROE) were calculated across C2-7 and C0-2. The association between C2-7 correction and change in C0-2 ROE was investigated while controlling for horizontal gaze, followed by stratification into ΔC2-7 percentiles. RESULTS:Sixty-five patients were included (mean age 61.8 ± 9.6 years, 68% female). At baseline, patients had cervical kyphosis (C2-7, -11.7° ± 18.2°; T1 slope-cervical lordosis mismatch, 38.6° ± 18.6°), negative global alignment (sagittal vertical axis [SVA] -12.8 ± 71.2 mm), and hyperlordosis at C0-2 (mean 33.2° ± 11.8°). The mean ROM was 25.7° ± 17.7° and 21.3° ± 9.9° at C2-7 and C0-2, respectively, with an ROE of approximately 9° for each segment. Limited C0-2 ROM and ROE correlated with the Neck Disability Index (r = -0.371 and -0.394, p < 0.01). The mean number of levels fused was 7.0 ± 3.1 (24.6% anterior, 43.1% posterior), with 87.7% undergoing at least an osteotomy. At 1 year, mean C2-7 increased to 5.5° ± 13.4°, SVA became neutral (11.5 ± 54.8 mm), C0-2 hyperlordosis decreased to 27.8° ± 11.7°, and thoracic kyphosis (TK) increased to -49.4° ± 18.1° (all p < 0.001). Concurrently, mean C0-2 ROM increased to 27.6° ± 8.1° and C2-7 ROM decreased significantly to 9.0° ± 12.3° without a change in ROE. Controlling for horizontal gaze, change in C2-7 lordosis significantly correlated with increased TK (r = -0.617, p < 0.001), decreased C0-2 (r = -0.747, p < 0.001), and increased C0-2 ROE (r = 0.550, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS:CD correction can significantly impact cephalad and caudal compensation in the upper cervical and thoracic spine. Restoration of cervical alignment resulted in increased C0-2 ROE and TK and was also associated with improved clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVE:Cervical deformity (CD) is a complex condition with a clear impact on patient quality of life, which can be improved with surgical treatment. Previous study following thoracolumbar surgery demonstrated a spontaneous and maintained improvement in cervical alignment following lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO). In this study the authors aimed to investigate the complementary questions of whether cervical alignment induces a change in global alignment and whether this change stabilizes over time. METHODS:To analyze spontaneous changes, this study included only patients with at least 5 levels remaining unfused following surgery. After data were obtained for the entire cohort, repeated-measures analyses were conducted between preoperative baseline and 3-month and 1-year follow-ups with a post hoc analysis and Bonferroni correction. A subanalysis of patients with 2-year follow-up was performed. RESULTS:One-year follow-up data were available for 121 of 168 patients (72%), and 89 patients had at least 5 levels remaining unfused following surgery. Preoperatively there was a moderate anterior cervical alignment (C2-7, -7.7° [kyphosis]; T1 slope minus cervical lordosis, 37.1°; cervical sagittal vertebral axis [cSVA], 37 mm) combined with a posterior global alignment (SVA, -8 mm) with lumbar hyperextension (pelvic incidence [PI] minus lumbar lordosis [LL] mismatch [PI-LL], -0.6°). Patients underwent a significant correction of the cervical alignment (median ΔC2-7, 13.6°). Simultaneously, PI-LL, T1 pelvic angle (TPA), and SVA increased significantly (all p < 0.05) between baseline and 3-month and 1-year follow-ups. Post hoc analysis demonstrated that all of the changes occurred between baseline and 3 months. Subanalysis of patients with complete 2-year follow-up demonstrated similar results, with stable postoperative thoracolumbar alignment achieved at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS:Correction of cervical malalignment can have a significant impact on thoracolumbar regional and global alignment. Peak relaxation of compensatory mechanisms is achieved by the 3-month follow-up and tends to remain stable. Subanalysis with 2-year data further supports this finding. These findings can help to identify when the results of cervical surgery on global alignment can be best evaluated.

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 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 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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine the validity and responsiveness of PROMIS metrics versus the SRS-22r questionnaire in adult spinal deformity (ASD). METHODS:Surgical ASD patients undergoing ≥ 4 levels fused with complete baseline PROMIS and SRS-22r data were included. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)] were compared. Cronbach's alpha and ICC values ≥ 0.70 were predefined as satisfactory. Convergent validity was evaluated via Spearman's correlations. Responsiveness was assessed via paired samples t tests with Cohen's d to assess measure of effect (baseline to 3 months). RESULTS:One hundred and ten pts are included. Mean baseline SRS-22r score was 2.62 ± 0.67 (domains = Function: 2.6, Pain: 2.5, Self-image: 2.2, Mental Health: 3.0). Mean PROMIS domains = Physical Function (PF): 12.4, Pain Intensity (PI): 91.7, Pain Interference (Int): 55.9. Cronbach's alpha, and ICC were not satisfactory for any SRS-22 and PROMIS domains. PROMIS-Int reliability was low for all SRS-22 domains (0.037-0.225). Convergent validity demonstrated strong correlation via Spearman's rho between PROMIS-PI and overall SRS-22r (- 0.61), SRS-22 Function (- 0.781), and SRS-22 Pain (- 0.735). PROMIS-PF had strong correlation with SRS-22 Function (0.643), while PROMIS-Int had moderate correlation with SRS-22 Pain (- 0.507). Effect size via Cohen's d showed that PROMIS had superior responsiveness across all domains except for self-image. CONCLUSIONS:PROMIS is a valid measure compared to SRS-22r in terms of convergent validity, and has greater measure of effect in terms of responsiveness, but failed in reliability and internal consistency. Surgeons should consider the lack of reliability and internal consistency (despite validity and responsiveness) of the PROMIS to SRS-22r before replacing the traditional questionnaire with the computer-adaptive testing.

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.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A single-center, retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs) between October 2014 and October 2019. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the effect of perioperative narcotic consumption and amount of narcotic prescribed at discharge on patient satisfaction with pain control after single-level ACDF. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Prior research has demonstrated that opioid prescription habits may be related to physician desire to produce superior patient satisfaction with pain control. METHODS:Patients with complete Press-Ganey Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey information were analyzed. Inpatient opioid prescriptions were recorded and converted to milligram morphine equivalents (MME) and tablets of 5 mg oxycodone. HCAHPS scores were converted to a Likert-type 5-point scale. RESULTS:A total of 47 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Average age was 48.1±10.9 y. Average inpatient opioids prescribed was 102±106 MME. Average opioids prescribed at discharge was 437±342 MME. No statistically significant correlation was found between satisfaction with pain control and opioid consumption while in the hospital [r=-0.106, P=0.483]. Similarly, there was no statistically significant correlation between satisfaction with pain control and opioids prescribed upon discharge [r=-0.185, P=0.219]. No statistically significant correlation was found between date of surgery and inpatient MME consumption [r=-0.113, P=0.450]. Interestingly, more opioids were prescribed at discharge the earlier the date of surgery [r=-0.426, P=0.003]. For every additional month further along in the study period, the odds of a patient reporting a top box score for satisfaction with pain control increased by 5.5% [P=0.025]. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study found no correlation between patient satisfaction with pain control and inpatient opioid dosage or outpatient prescription dosage after single-level ACDF. Moreover, satisfaction with pain control increased over time despite a decrease in MME prescribed at discharge. This suggests that factors other than narcotic consumption play a more important role in patient satisfaction with pain control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

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.