Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Cervical deformity morphotypes based on type and location of deformity have previously been described. This study aimed to examine the surgical strategies implemented to treat these deformity types and identify if differences in treatment strategies impact surgical outcomes. Our hypothesis was that surgical strategies will differ based on different morphologies of cervical deformity. METHODS:Adult patients enrolled in a prospective cervical deformity database were classified into four deformity types (Flatneck (FN), Focal kyphosis (FK), Cervicothoracic kyphosis (CTK) and Coronal (C)), as previously described. We analyzed group differences in demographics, preoperative symptoms, health-related quality of life scores (HRQOLs), and surgical strategies were evaluated, and postop radiographic and HROQLs at 1+ year follow up were compared. RESULTS:< 0.05) with their respective surgical strategies. CONCLUSIONS:The four types of cervical deformities had different surgical strategies to achieve improvements in HRQOLs. FN and FK types were more often treated with APSF surgery, while types CTK and C were more likely to undergo PSF. CTK deformities had the highest number of 3COs. This information may provide guidelines for the successful management of cervical deformities.

Robotic-assisted adult deformity surgery has played a rapidly expanding role since its introduction. As robotic spine technologies improve, the potential to limit complications and morbidity is vast. The improvements in instrumentation accuracy combined with the ability to maintain that accuracy in multiple positions allow creative surgical approaches and techniques that can limit operative time, blood loss, and improve outcomes. In the years to come, robotic-assisted spine surgery and navigation will likely play an expanding role that continues to be defined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5, expert opinion.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:The objective of the study is to investigate which neurologic complications affect clinical outcomes the most following cervical deformity (CD) surgery. Methods/UNASSIGNED:CD patients (C2-C7 Cobb >10°, CL >10°, cSVA >4 cm or chin-brow vertical angle >25°) >18 years with follow-up surgical and health-related quality of life (HRQL) data were included. Descriptive analyses assessed demographics. Neurologic complications assessed were C5 motor deficit, central neurodeficit, nerve root motor deficits, nerve sensory deficits, radiculopathy, and spinal cord deficits. Neurologic complications were classified as major or minor, then: intraoperative, before discharge, before 30 days, before 90 days, and after 90 days. HRQL outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Integrated health state (IHS) for the neck disability index (NDI), EQ5D, and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) were assessed using all follow-up time points. A subanalysis assessed IHS outcomes for patients with 2Y follow-up. Results/UNASSIGNED:= 0.263, 0.163). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:18% of patients undergoing CD surgery experienced a neurologic complication, with 15% within 3 months. Patients who experienced any neurologic complication had worse mJOA recovery kinetics by 1 year and trended toward worse recovery at 2 years. Of the neurologic complications, central neurologic deficits and spinal cord deficits were the most detrimental.

BACKGROUND:There is controversy as to whether fusions should have the upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) end in the upper lumbar spine or cross the thoracolumbar junction. This study compares outcomes and reoperation rates for thoracolumbar fusions to the sacrum or pelvis with UIV in the lower thoracic versus lumbar spine to determine if there is an increased reoperation rate depending on UIV selection. METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted from a single-center database on adult patients with degeneration and deformity who underwent primary and revision fusions with a caudal level of S1 or ilium between 2012 and 2018. Fusions were classified as anterior, posterior, or combination approach. Revision fusions included patients who had spinal surgery at another institution prior to their revision surgery at the center. Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 groups based on UIV: T9-T11, upper lumbar region (L1-L2), and lower lumbar region (L3-L5). Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older and at least 1 year of clinical follow-up. Patients were excluded from analysis if they had tumors, infections, or less than 1 year of follow-up after the index procedure. RESULTS:= .002) from the reoperation rates for the same diagnoses in the upper lumbar spine (4.6% and 1%) or lower lumbar spine (6.2% and 0%). A multivariate logistical regression model at 2-year follow up did not show a statistically significant difference between reoperation rates between the thoracic and upper lumbar spine UIV groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Constructs with UIV in the thoracic spine suffer from higher rates of proximal junctional kyphosis and pseudoarthrosis, whereas those with UIV in the upper lumbar spine have higher rates of adjacent segment disease. Given this tradeoff, there is no certain recommendation on what UIV will result in a lower reoperation rate in thoracolumbar fusion constructs to the sacrum or pelvis. Surgeons must evaluate patient characteristics and risks to make the optimal decision.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE:To compare outcomes of plastic versus spine surgeon wound closure in revision 1 to 4 level thoracolumbar fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Plastic surgeons perform layered musculocutaneous flap closures in high-risk spine patients such as revision posterior spinal fusion and complex deformity correction surgeries. Few studies have assessed outcomes of revision fusion performed with plastic surgical closures, particularly in nondeformity thoracolumbar spinal surgery. METHODS:A retrospective review of 1 to 4 level revision thoracolumbar fusion performed by Orthopedic or Neurosurgical spine surgeons. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics and perioperative outcomes. Patients were divided into two cohorts: wound closures performed by spine surgeons and those closed by plastic surgeons. Outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score match for prior levels fused, iliac fixation, and levels fused at index surgery. Significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS:Three hundred fifty-seven (87.3%) spine surgeon (SS) and 52 (12.7%) plastic surgeon (PS) closures were identified. PS group had significantly higher number of levels fused at index (PS 2.7 ± 1.0 vs. SS 1.8 ± 0.9, P < 0.001) and at prior surgeries (PS 1.8 ± 1.2 vs. SS 1.0 ± 0.9, P < 0.001), and rate of iliac instrumentation (PS 17.3% vs. SS 2.8%, P < 0.001). Plastics closure was an independent risk factor for length of stay  > 5 days (odds ratio 2.3) and postoperative seroma formation (odds ratio 7.8). After propensity score match, PS had higher rates of seromas (PS 36.5% vs. SS 3.8%, P < 0.001). There were no differences between PS and SS groups in surgical outcomes, perioperative complication, surgical site infection, seroma requiring aspiration, or return to operating room at all time points until follow-up (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Plastic spinal closure for 1 to 4 level revision posterior thoracolumbar fusions had no advantage in reducing wound complications over spine surgeon closure but increased postoperative seroma formation.Level of Evidence: 4.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Robot-guided lumbar instrumented fusion (RGLF) has the potential to improve safety and accuracy of pedicle screw placement. However, there are pitfalls in adopting this new technology and, as in adopting any new OR technology, there may be early complications. Optimizing workflow by avoiding interbody placement prior to pedicle screws placement (interbody-first workflow, IFW) and using caution in patients with poor bone quality (L1 Hounsfield units [HU] under 148) may improve outcomes. PURPOSE: To determine risk factors for robot-related complications and suggest optimal OR workflow. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single-center retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 344 RGLF cases from 2018 to 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: L1 and UIV HU, levels fused, L5-S1 inclusion, interbody placed first workflow (IFW), hyperlordotic interbody, robot registration method, robot registration failure, intraoperative robot mechanical failures and pedicle screw malpositioning.
METHOD(S): Retrospective analysis of RGLFs at a single institution. Univariate analysis with t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, or chi-squared analysis assessed demographics, L1 and UIV HU, levels fused, L5-S1 inclusion, IFW, hyperlordotic cage, and robot registration method as risk factors for robot registration failure, intraoperative robot mechanical failures, and pedicle screw malpositioning. Multivariate logistic regression of risk factors approaching or achieving significance was conducted. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was created to determine a threshold for independent risk factors.
RESULT(S): A total of 344 RGLFs were included. In registered vs registration failure cases, smoking (12.73% vs 28.57%; p=0.041), L1HU (139.81+/-46.86 vs 177.16+/-55.74; p=0.009), L5-S1 inclusion (50.00% vs 80.95%; p=0.006), and IFW (58.07% vs 85.71%; p=0.014) were significant risk factors on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, smoking (p=0.003), L1HU (p=0.006), and L5-S1 inclusion (p=0.022) were independent risk factors and IFW approached significance (p=0.099) for risk of registration failure. In successful vs all robot failures cases, age (55.72+/-13.38 vs 59.92+/-11.38 years; p=0.046), female gender (48.70% vs 69.44%; p=0.018), levels fused (1.37+/-0.63 vs 1.67+/-0.76; p=0.010), L5-S1 inclusion (50.00% vs 69.44%; p=0.027), and IFW (57.47% vs 77.78%; p=0.012) were significant risk factors on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, female gender (p=0.047) and L5-S1 inclusion (p=0.049) were independent risk factors and IFW approached significance (p=0.055) for risk of mechanical failure. In successful vs pedicle screw malpositioned cases, IFW was a significant independent risk factor for pedicle screw malpositioning on multivariate analysis (p=0.038). On subanalysis of 124 robot-guided anterior-posterior lumbar fusion (RG APLF), L1 HU was an independent risk factors for registration failure (p=0.007) and approached significance for mechanical failures (p=0.051). ROC analysis revealed a cutoff of L1 HU of 148.55 for mechanical failures (area under the curve = 0.778). Levels fused (1.41+/-0.69 vs 2.00+/-0.54; p=0.018) was a significant risk factor for pedicle screw malpositioning on univariate analysis.
CONCLUSION(S): In all RGLFs, IFW was a risk factor for robot-related complications. In RG APLF, low L1 HU was a risk factor. Robot-related complications may be avoided by placing pedicle screws prior to interbody and by using caution in patients with poor bone quality. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: ASD is a vague and heterogeneous label applied to adults afflicted with varying types, severities, and etiologies of spine deformities. We hypothesized that ASD patients with a history of spine fusion and associated spine deformity (revision=R) have distinct pathognomonic differences from ASD patients with no history of spine fusion (primary=P). PURPOSE: Evaluate baseline differences for revision vs primary ASD patients including demographics, radiographic spine deformity, functional measures, opiate consumption and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), prior to receiving reconstructive ASD surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Preoperative analysis of ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study. PATIENT SAMPLE: ASD patients prospectively enrolled into multicenter study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Numeric rating scale (NRS) back and leg pain, Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire (SRS-22r), Edmonton Frailty Index (EFI score), grip strength, Veterans Rand Health Questionnaire (VR-12), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), daily morphine milligram equivalent consumption (MME), PROMIS-Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), PROMIS-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), PROMIS-Depression (DEP), PROMIS-Anxiety (ANX), PROMIS-Satisfaction with Social Roles (SR) and PROMIS-Satisfaction with Discretionary Social Activities (SSA) computer adaptive tests (CATs).
METHOD(S): From 2018-2020, patients age >18 years were enrolled in a multicenter prospective study evaluating surgical treatment for ASD. Patients were dichotomized according to R vs P, and preop demographics, grip strength, frailty, daily MME consumption, physical examination, radiographic measures, and PROMs data were compared.
RESULT(S): A total of 204/204 enrolled patients were evaluated; R (n=99), P (n= 105). R and P had similar age, Charleson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and gender distribution (p>0.05). R had greater daily MME consumption (35mg vs 15mg), were more frail (EFI score 4 vs 2), and had greater incidence of motor deficits (54% vs 37%) than P, respectively (p<0.05). R differed radiographically from P in 11/15 measurements, as nearly all sagittal parameters were worse for R (SVA=139mm vs 57mm; PI-LL=26degree vs 12degree; PT= 28.2degree vs 20.7degree), while P had greater scoliosis (50.6degree vs 20.3degree), respectively (p<0.05). Nearly all PROM measures were worse for R vs P, including disability (ODI=48 vs 38), pain measures (PROMIS PI=66.9 vs 61.9; NRS-Back=7.0 vs 6.0), physical function (PROMIS-PF=32.8 vs 36.8, SRS-Activity=2.6 vs 3.2), social function (PROMIS-SSA= 40.4 vs 45.4), depression (PROMIS-DEP=51.1 vs 48.8), and self-image (SRS-Appearance=2.2 vs 2.6).
CONCLUSION(S): Revision ASD patients are distinctly different from primary ASD patients. Despite having similar preop age, gender and CCI, R were more frail, consumed more opiates, and reported greater pain, disability, function, and worse mental health than P. R had greater sagittal deformities while P had worse coronal deformities. Future analysis of ASD patients should distinguish between revision and primary patients to avoid confounding analyses. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: A previous study utilized normative alignment to determine overcorrections and predict mechanical complications in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Other studies have recommended alignment targets that optimize age-appropriate physical function. The difference in functional outcomes and mechanical complications between these prescribed alignment targets has not been explored. This study utilizes a component angle of the T1 pelvic angle (TPA) within the fusion to compare normative and age-pelvic incidence (PI) optimal alignment in terms of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), proximal junctional failure (PJF) and health related quality of life measures (HRQL). Using the component of TPA within the fusion, the T4-pelvic angle (T4PA), allows for the measurement spinopelvic alignment separate from that of the unfused thoracic spine and any PJK that may occur postoperatively. PURPOSE: To compare ASD patients corrected to normative alignment vs age-PI optimal alignment in terms of PJK/PJF and outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter ASD database and a database of asymptomatic subjects. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 1,916 ASD patients and 118 asymptomatic subjects for formula development; 288 ASD patients with 2-year X-ray and HRQL follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: SF36-PCS, ODI, SRS-22, NRS back/leg, PJK (change in UIV to UIV+2 >10degree), PJF (defined as severe PJK with change >21.6degree, or UIV olisthesis, or proximal junctional fracture).
METHOD(S): Baseline relationships between age, PI and T4PA, were analyzed in the ASD patients and compared to the asymptomatic subjects. Linear regression modeling was used to determine alignment based on PI and age in asymptomatic subjects (normative alignment), and in ASD patients, alignment corresponding to age-appropriate functional status (optimal alignment). ASD patients with UIV above T4 were grouped based on their corrections: normative vs optimal. Extreme over or under corrected patients were excluded (greater than or less than 2SD from mean postop T4PA). For each group, the rate of PJK and PJF were determined.
RESULT(S): In the multilinear regression analysis of the 119 asymptomatic subjects, T4PA correlated with age and PI, r=.713, p<.0001. 1916 ASD patients were included in the optimal formula development. In the 288 ASD patients included in the pre- to postop analysis (137 normative, 151 optimal), there was no difference in baseline alignment or HRQL between the groups. At 6 weeks, the normative aligned group had smaller T4PA (4.45 vs 14.1) and PI-LL (-7.24 vs 7.4), all p<.0001. Normative aligned patients had the higher PJK rate (40% vs 27.2%, p=.03) compared with optimal; and a higher PJF rate (17% vs 6.8%, p=.008). PJF patients had -1.2degreeof T4PA offset from normative alignment and -5.2degreeof offset from optimal alignment. By contrast, no PJF patients had 3.8degree of T4PA offset from normative alignment and -0.42degree of offset from optimal alignment. There was a trend toward worse 2-year SF36-PCS in patients who suffered PJF (37.7 vs 41.6, p=.09). Both the Normative and Optimal groups improved in outcomes from baseline to 2-year (p<.001) with no difference in 2-year HRQL.
CONCLUSION(S): Correcting ASD patients to normative alignment resulted in higher rates of PJK and PJF without improvements in HRQL. ASD patients should not be corrected to match the alignment of their asymptomatic unfused peers, rather they should be realigned optimally to match age-appropriate physical function. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Both frailty and surgical invasiveness are correlated with increased risk of complications following ASD surgery, yet there is no accepted risk-stratification system combining these factors. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to ascertain data-driven categories defining the risk for 90-day complications following ASD surgery based on frailty and surgical invasiveness. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a multicenter database. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 1,272 surgical ASD patients undergoing spinal fusions >=5 levels OUTCOME MEASURES: Ninety-day complication risk, 90-day complication rate, invasiveness thresholds for increased complications.
METHOD(S): Using a prospective, multicenter database, we identified 1,272 surgical ASD patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion of at least five levels. Patients were separated into three frailty groups based on the ASD-FI frailty index. Within each frailty group, stratum-specific likelihood ratio (SSLR) analyses were performed to define frailty-based surgical invasiveness cutoffs associated with increased risk for 90-day complications. Cutoffs generated through SSLR were confirmed with multivariable logistic regression analysis controlling for age, alignment, and ODI.
RESULT(S): Mean age was 60 +/- 14 years, 74% females. Of 1,272 surgical ASD patients, 319 (35%) were nonfrail (NF), 667 (52%) frail (F), and 286 (23%) severely frail (SF). Mean SI was 93 +/- 35. The mean complication rate was 35.4% for NF, 37% for F and 43.6% for SF. SSLR analysis of NF patients produced 2 complication categories: 33% complication rate for SI < 153 and 73% for SI >= 153. NF patients with SI >= 153 had 4.14x higher odds of complications than NF patients with SI <153 (p=0.04). SSLR analysis of F patients produced 3 complication categories: 26% complication rate for SI < 60, 42% for SI of 60 to 179, and 64% for SI >= 180. Relative to F patients with SI < 60, F patients with SI 60 to 179, and SI >= 180 had 2.4x and 6.7x higher odds of complications, respectively (p<0.01 for both). SSLR analysis of SF patients produced 2 complication categories: 35% complication rate for SI < 82 and 49% complication rate for SI >= 82. SF patients with SI >= 82 had 1.77x higher odds of complications than SF patients with SI < 82 (p=0.04).
CONCLUSION(S): Frailer groups were found to have lower SI cutoffs, indicating the less invasiveness surgeries can be performed on frail patients to minimize complication risk. This risk-stratification system is useful for counselling patients regarding their risk of complication. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Few studies investigate segmental lordosis restoration after long fusion with anterior (ALIF) vs transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for adults with flatback deformity. PURPOSE: Our objective was to compare segmental lordosis restoration, health-related quality-of-life (HRQL), and complications associated with L4-S1 ALIF vs TLIF in operative treatment of flatback deformity. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected multicenter consecutive case registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: Database enrollment required age >=18 years, scoliosis >=20degree, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) >=5cm, pelvic tilt >=25degree, or thoracic kyphosis >=60degree. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic correction (including L4-S1 segmental lordosis), HRQL (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Short Form-36 [SF-36] scores, Scoliosis Research Society-22 [SRS-22r] scores), and complications.
Method(s): Prospective multicenter data were reviewed. Study inclusion required pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis mismatch >=10degree (flatback), index ALIF vs TLIF at L4-L5 and/or L5-S1, and minimum 2-year follow-up. Cage details (height and lordosis) were also assessed.
Result(s): Of 222 consecutive patients, 157 (71%) achieved 2-year follow-up (age=63+/-10years, women=82%, ALIF=43%, TLIF=57%). Index operations had 12+/-3 posterior levels, iliac fixation=93%, and ALIF/TLIF at L4-L5 (66%) and L5-S1 (85%). ALIF vs TLIF cages were similar in height, but cage lordosis was greater for ALIF: L4-L5 (9degree+/-5degree vs 7degree+/-2degree, p=0.025) and L5-S1 (14degree+/-9degree vs 7degree+/-3degree, p<0.001). ALIF (vs TLIF) was associated with significantly more L4-S1 segmental lordosis at last follow-up (37degree+/-11degree vs 31degree+/-9degree, p<0.001) despite similar baseline measurement (32degree+/-15degree vs 31degree+/-14degree, p=0.705). Multiple regression demonstrated 1degree increase in L4-L5 ALIF cage lordosis led to 0.9degree increase in L4-L5 segmental lordosis (p=0.014), and 1degree increase in L5-S1 ALIF cage lordosis led to 0.5degree increase in L5-S1 segmental lordosis (p=0.005). For all patients, final alignment improved significantly (p<0.05): T12-S1 lordosis (25degree+/-17degree to 48degree+/-13degree), L4-S1 lordosis (32degree+/-14degree to 34degree+/-10degree),