Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A retrospective review of operative patients at a single institution. OBJECTIVE:To validate a novel method of detecting pseudarthrosis on dynamic radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:A common complication after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is pseudarthrosis. A previously published method for detecting pseudarthrosis identifies a 1 mm difference in interspinous motion (ISM), which requires calibration of images and relies on anatomic landmarks difficult to visualize. An alternative is to use angles between spinous processes, which does not require calibration and relies on more visible landmarks. METHODS:ISM was measured on dynamic radiographs using the previously published linear method and new angular method. Angles were defined by lines from screw heads to dorsal points of spinous processes. Angular cutoff for fusion was calculated using a regression equation correlating linear and angular measures, based on the 1 mm linear cutoff. Pseudarthrosis was assessed with both cutoffs. Sensitivity, specificity, inter- and intra-reliability of angular and linear measures used post-operative CT as the reference. RESULTS:242 fused levels (81 allograft, 84 PEEK, 40 titanium, 37 standalone cages) were measured in 143 patients (mean age 52.0±11.5, 42%F). 36 patients (66 levels) had 1-year postoperative CTs; 13 patients (13 levels) had confirmed pseudarthrosis. Linear and angular measurements closely correlated (R=0.872), with 2.3° corresponding to 1 mm linear ISM. Potential pseudarthroses was found in 28.0% and 18.5% levels using linear and angular cutoffs, respectively. Linear cutoff had 85% sensitivity, 87% specificity; angular cutoff had 85% sensitivity, 96% specificity for detecting CT-validated pseudarthrosis. Interclass correlation coefficients were 0.974 and 0.986 (both P<0.001); intra-rater reliability averaged 0.953 and 0.974 (P<0.001 for all) for linear and angular methods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The angular measure for assessing potential pseudarthrosis is as sensitive as and more specific than published linear methods, has high inter-observer reliability, and can be used without image calibration.

OBJECTIVE:To assess whether surgical cervical deformity (CD) patients meet spinopelvic age-adjusted alignment targets, reciprocal, and lower limb compensation changes. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review. METHODS:CD was defined as C2-C7 lordosis >10°, cervical sagittal vertical angle (cSVA) >4 cm, or T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL) >20°. Inclusion criteria were age >18 years and undergoing surgical correction with complete baseline and postoperative imaging. Published formulas were used to create age-adjusted alignment target for pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), sagittal vertical angle (SVA), and lumbar lordosis and thoracic kyphosis (LL-TK). Actual alignment was compared with age-adjusted ideal values. Patients who matched ±10-year thresholds for age-adjusted targets were compared with unmatched cases (under- or overcorrected). RESULTS:= 0.269). CONCLUSIONS:In response to worsening CD postoperatively, patients increased in TK and recruited less lower limb compensation. Almost 75% of CD patients did not meet previously established spinopelvic alignment goals, of whom a subset of patients were actually made worse off in these parameters following surgery. This finding raises the question of whether we should be looking at the entire spine when treating CD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3/METHODS/:

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:Assess changes in outcomes and surgical approaches for adult cervical deformity (ACD) surgery over time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:As the population ages and prevalence of cervical deformity increases, corrective surgery has been increasingly seen as a viable treatment. Dramatic surgical advancements and expansion of knowledge on this procedure have transpired over years, but the impact on cervical deformity surgery is unknown. METHODS:ACD patients (≥18 yrs) with complete baseline and up to two-year HRQL and radiographic data were included. Descriptive analysis included demographics, radiographic, and surgical details. Patients were grouped into Early(2013-2014) and Late(2015-2017) by DOS. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to assess differences in surgical, radiographic, and clinical outcomes over time. RESULTS:119 cervical deformity patients met inclusion criteria. Early group consisted of 72 patients, and Late group consisted of 47. Late group had a higher CCI (1.3 vs. 0.72), more cerebrovascular disease (6% vs. 0%, both P<0.05), and no difference in age, frailty, deformity, or cervical rigidity. Controlling for baseline deformity, and age, Late group underwent fewer three-column osteotomies (OR=0.18, 95% CI:0.06-0.76, P=0.014). At last follow-up, Late group had less patients with: a moderate/high Ames horizontal modifier (71.7% vs. 88.2%), and overcorrection in PT (4.3% vs. 18.1%, both P<0.05). Controlling for baseline deformity, age, levels fused, and three-column osteotomies, Late group experienced fewer adverse events (OR =0.15, 95% CI: 0.28-0.8, P=0.03), and neurological complications (OR =0.1, 95% CI:0.012-0.87, P=0.03). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite a population with greater co-morbidity and associated risk, outcomes remained consistent between early and later time-periods, indicating general improvements in care. The later cohort demonstrated fewer three-column osteotomies, less suboptimal realignments and concomitant reductions in adverse events and neurologic complications. This may suggest greater facility with less invasive techniques.

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:Single-center retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate inpatient MME administration associated with different lumbar spinal fusion surgeries. METHODS:< .05. RESULTS:= .009). There were no significant differences in MME/hour and incidence of ileus between all groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing MIS TLIF had lower inpatient opioid intake compared to TP and SP ALIF/LLIF, as well as shorter LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Thus, it appears that the advantages of minimally invasive surgery are seen in minimally invasive TLIFs.

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This study compares perioperative and 1-year outcomes of lateral decubitus single position circumferential fusion (L-SPS) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) for degenerative pathologies. METHODS:Multicenter retrospective chart review of patients undergoing AP fusion with L-SPS or MIS TLIF. Demographics and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared using independent samples t tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS:A total of 445 patients were included: 353 L-SPS, 92 MIS TLIF. The L-SPS cohort was significantly older with fewer diabetics and more levels fused. The L-SPS cohort had significantly shorter operative time, blood loss, radiation dosage, and length of stay compared to MIS TLIF. 1-year follow-up showed that the L-SPS cohort had higher rates of fusion (97.87% vs. 81.11%; p = 0.006) and lower rates of subsidence (6.38% vs. 38.46%; p < 0.001) compared with MIS TLIF. There were significantly fewer returns to the OR within 1 year for early mechanical failures with L-SPS (0.0% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.001). 1-year radiographic outcomes revealed that the L-SPS cohort had a greater LL (56.6 ± 12.5 vs. 51.1 ± 15.9; p = 0.004), smaller PI-LL mismatch (0.2 ± 13.0 vs. 5.5 ± 10.5; p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in amount of change in VAS scores between cohorts. Similar results were seen after propensity-matched analysis and sub-analysis of cases including L5-S1. CONCLUSIONS:L-SPS improves perioperative outcomes and does not compromise clinical or radiographic results at 1-year follow-up compared with MIS TLIF. There may be decreased rates of early mechanical failure with L-SPS.

OBJECTIVE:The current literature has primarily focused on the 2-year outcomes of operative adult spinal deformity (ASD) treatment. Longer term durability is important given the invasiveness, complications, and costs of these procedures. The aim of this study was to assess minimum 3-year outcomes and complications of ASD surgery. METHODS:Operatively treated ASD patients were assessed at baseline, follow-up, and through mailings. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r) questionnaire, mental component summary (MCS) and physical component summary (PCS) of the SF-36, and numeric rating scale (NRS) for back and leg pain. Complications were classified as perioperative (≤ 90 days), delayed (90 days to 2 years), and long term (≥ 2 years). Analyses focused on patients with minimum 3-year follow-up. RESULTS:Of 569 patients, 427 (75%) with minimum 3-year follow-up (mean ± SD [range] 4.1 ± 1.1 [3.0-9.6] years) had a mean age of 60.8 years and 75% were women. Operative treatment included a posterior approach for 426 patients (99%), with a mean ± SD 12 ± 4 fusion levels. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion was performed in 35 (8%) patients, and 89 (21%) underwent 3-column osteotomy. All PROMs improved significantly from baseline to last follow-up, including scores on ODI (45.4 to 30.5), PCS (31.0 to 38.5), MCS (45.3 to 50.6), SRS-22r total (2.7 to 3.6), SRS-22r activity (2.8 to 3.5), SRS-22r pain (2.3 to 3.4), SRS-22r appearance (2.4 to 3.5), SRS-22r mental (3.4 to 3.7), SRS-22r satisfaction (2.7 to 4.1), NRS for back pain (7.1 to 3.8), and NRS for leg pain (4.8 to 3.0) (all p < 0.001). Degradations in some outcome measures were observed between the 2-year and last follow-up evaluations, but the magnitudes of these degradations were modest and arguably not clinically significant. Overall, 277 (65%) patients had at least 1 complication, including 185 (43%) perioperative, 118 (27%) delayed, and 56 (13%) long term. Notably, the 142 patients who did not achieve 3-year follow-up were similar to the study patients in terms of demographic characteristics, deformities, and baseline PROMs and had similar rates and types of complications. CONCLUSIONS:This prospective multicenter analysis demonstrated that operative ASD treatment provided significant improvement of health-related quality of life at minimum 3-year follow-up (mean 4.1 years), suggesting that the benefits of surgery for ASD remain durable at longer follow-up. These findings should prove useful for counseling, cost-effectiveness assessments, and efforts to improve the safety of care.

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.