Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To prioritize the cervical parameter targets for alignment. METHODS:Included: cervical deformity (CD) patients (C2-7 Cobb angle > 10°, cervical lordosis > 10°, cervical sagittal vertical axis [cSVA] > 4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle > 25°) with full baseline (BL) and 1-year (1Y) radiographic parameters and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores; patients with cervical [C] or cervicothoracic [CT] Primary Driver Ames type. Patients with BL Ames classified as low CD for both parameters of cSVA ( < 4 cm) and T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL) ( < 15°) were excluded. Patients assessed: meeting minimum clinically important differences (MCID) for NDI ( < -15 ΔNDI). Ratios of correction were found for regional parameters categorized by primary Ames driver (C or CT). Decision tree analysis assessed cutoffs for differences associated with meeting NDI MCID at 1Y. RESULTS:Seventy-seven CD patients (mean age, 62.1 years; 64% female; body mass index, 28.8 kg/m2). Forty-one point six percent of patients met MCID for NDI. A backwards linear regression model including radiographic differences as predictors from BL to 1Y for meeting MCID for NDI demonstrated an R2 of 0.820 (p = 0.032) included TS-CL, cSVA, McGregor's slope (MGS), C2 sacral slope, C2-T3 angle, C2-T3 SVA, cervical lordosis. By primary Ames driver, 67.5% of patients were C, and 32.5% CT. Ratios of change in predictors for MCID NDI patients for C and CT were not significant between the 2 groups (p > 0.050). Decision tree analysis determined cutoffs for radiographic change, prioritizing in the following order: ≥ 42.5° C2-T3 angle, > 35.4° cervical lordosis, < -31.76° C2 slope, < -11.57-mm cSVA, < -2.16° MGS, > -30.8-mm C2-T3 SVA, and ≤ -33.6° TS-CL. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Certain ratios of correction of cervical parameters contribute to improving neck disability. Prioritizing these radiographic alignment parameters may help optimize patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing CD surgery.

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.

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.

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.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study of a prospective cervical deformity (CD) database. OBJECTIVE:Identify factors associated with distal junctional kyphosis (DJK); assess differences across DJK types. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:DJK may develop as compensation for mal-correction of sagittal deformity in the thoracic curve. There is limited understanding of DJK drivers, especially for different DJK types. METHODS:Included: patients with pre- and postoperative clinical/radiographic data. Excluded: patients with previous fusion to L5 or below. DJK was defined per surgeon note or DJK angle (kyphosis from LIV to LIV-2)<-10°, and pre- to postoperative change in DJK angle by<-10°. Age-specific target LL-TK alignment was calculated as published. Offset from target LL-TK was correlated to DJK magnitude and inclination. DJK types: severe (DJK<-20°), progressive (DJK increase>4.4°), symptomatic (reoperation or published disability thresholds of NDI ≥ 24 or mJOA≤14). Random forest identified factors associated with DJK. Means comparison tests assessed differences. RESULTS:Included: 136 CD patients (61 ± 10 yr, 61%F). DJK rate was 30%. Postop offset from ideal LL-TK correlated with greater DJK angle (r = 0.428) and inclination of the distal end of the fusion construct (r = 0.244, both P < 0.02). Seven of the top 15 factors associated with DJK were radiographic, four surgical, and four clinical. Breakdown by type: severe (22%), progressive (24%), symptomatic (61%). Symptomatic had more posterior osteotomies than asymptomatic (P = 0.018). Severe had worse NDI and upper-cervical deformity (CL, C2 slope, C0-C2), as well as more posterior osteotomies than nonsevere (all P < 0.01). Progressive had greater malalignment both globally and in the cervical spine (all P < 0.03) than static. Each type had varying associated factors. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Offset from age-specific alignment is associated with greater DJK and more anterior distal construct inclination, suggesting DJK may develop due to inappropriate realignment. Preoperative clinical and radiographic factors are associated with symptomatic and progressive DJK, suggesting the need for preoperative risk stratification.Level of Evidence: 3.

BACKGROUND:Few reports focus on adults with severe scoliosis. OBJECTIVE:To report surgical outcomes and complications for adults with severe scoliosis. METHODS:A multicenter, retrospective review was performed on operatively treated adults with severe scoliosis (minimum coronal Cobb: thoracic [TH] ≥ 75°, thoracolumbar [TL] ≥ 50°, lumbar [L] ≥ 50°). RESULTS:Of 178 consecutive patients, 146 (82%; TH = 8, TL = 88, L = 50) achieved minimum 2-yr follow-up (mean age = 53.9 ± 13.2 yr, 92% women). Operative details included posterior-only (58%), 3-column osteotomy (14%), iliac fixation (72%), and mean posterior fusion = 13.2 ± 3.7 levels. Global coronal alignment (3.8 to 2.8 cm, P = .001) and maximum coronal Cobb improved significantly (P ≤.020): TH (84º to 57º; correction = 32%), TL (67º to 35º; correction = 48%), L (61º to 29º; correction = 53%). Sagittal alignment improved significantly (P < .001), most notably for L: C7-sagittal vertical axis 6.7 to 2.5 cm, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch 18º to 3º. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) improved significantly (P < .001), most notably for L: Oswestry Disability Index (44.4 ± 20.5 to 26.1 ± 18.3), Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary (30.2 ± 10.8 to 39.9 ± 9.8), and Scoliosis Research Society-22r Total (2.9 ± 0.7 to 3.8 ± 0.7). Minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds were achieved in 36% to 75% and 29% to 51%, respectively. Ninety-four (64%) patients had ≥1 complication (total = 191, 92 minor/99 major, most common = rod fracture [13.0%]). Fifty-seven reoperations were performed in 37 (25.3%) patients, with most common indications deep wound infection (11) and rod fracture (10). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although results demonstrated high rates of complications, operative treatment of adults with severe scoliosis was associated with significant improvements in mean HRQL outcome measures for the study cohort at minimum 2-yr follow-up.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Patients with symptomatic cervical deformity (CD) requiring surgical correction often present with hyperkyphosis (HK), though patients with hyperlordotic curves may require surgery as well. Few studies have investigated differences in CD-corrective surgery with regards to HK and hyperlordosis (HL). Materials and Methods/UNASSIGNED:Operative CD patients (C2-C7 Cobb >10°, cervical lordosis [CL] >10°, cervical sagittal vertical axis [cSVA] >4 cm, chin-brow vertical angle >25°) with baseline (BL) and 1Y radiographic data. Patients were stratified based on BL C2-7 lordosis (CL) angle: those >1 standard deviation (SD) from the mean (-6.96° ±21.47°) were hyperlordotic (>14.51°) or hyperkyphotic (≤28.43°) depending on directionality. Patients within 1 SD were considered the control group. Results/UNASSIGNED:< 0.001), however postoperative differences in McGregor's slope and C0-C2 were not significant. HK drivers of deformity were primarily C (90%), whereas HL had primary computed tomography (38.1%), upper thoracic (23.8%), and C (14.3%) drivers. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Hyperlodotic patients trended higher revision rates with greater radiographic malalignment at 1Y postoperative, perhaps due to undercorrection compared to kyphotic etiologies.

Background/UNASSIGNED:For cervical deformity (CD) surgery, goals include realignment, improved patient quality of life, and improved clinical outcomes. There is limited research identifying patients most likely to achieve all three. Objective/UNASSIGNED:The objective is to create a model predicting good 1-year postoperative realignment, quality of life, and clinical outcomes following CD surgery using baseline demographic, clinical, and radiographic factors. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective review of a multicenter CD database. CD patients were defined as having one of the following radiographic criteria: Cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) >4 cm, cervical kyphosis/scoliosis >10°° or chin-brow vertical angle >25°. The outcome assessed was whether a patient achieved both a good radiographic and clinical outcome. The primary analysis was stepwise regression models which generated a dataset-specific prediction model for achieving a good radiographic and clinical outcome. Model internal validation was achieved by bootstrapping and calculating the area under the curve (AUC) of the final model with 95% confidence intervals. Results/UNASSIGNED:Seventy-three CD patients were included (61.8 years, 58.9% F). The final model predicting the achievement of a good overall outcome (radiographic and clinical) yielded an AUC of 73.5% and included the following baseline demographic, clinical, and radiographic factors: mild-moderate myelopathy (Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association >12), no pedicle subtraction osteotomy, no prior cervical spine surgery, posterior lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) at T1 or above, thoracic kyphosis >33°°, T1 slope <16 and cSVA <20 mm. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Achievement of a positive outcome in radiographic and clinical outcomes following surgical correction of CD can be predicted with high accuracy using a combination of demographic, clinical, radiographic, and surgical factors, with the top factors being baseline cSVA <20 mm, no prior cervical surgery, and posterior LIV at T1 or above.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Osteotomies are commonly performed to correct sagittal malalignment in cervical deformity (CD). However, the risks and benefits of performing a major osteotomy for cervical deformity correction have been understudied. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the risks and benefits of performing a major osteotomy for CD correction. Methods/UNASSIGNED:-tests and Chi-squared tests were used to assess differences between MAJ and MIN. A sub-analysis compared patients with flexible versus rigid CL. Results/UNASSIGNED:> 0.05). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Cervical deformity patients who underwent a major osteotomy had similar clinical outcomes at 3-months but worse outcomes at 1-year as compared to minor osteotomies, likely due to differences in baseline deformity. Patients with rigid deformities who underwent a major osteotomy had higher complication rates and worse clinical improvement despite similar realignment at 1 year.

Background/UNASSIGNED:To optimize quality of life in patients with cervical deformity (CD), there may be alignment targets to be prioritized. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To prioritize the cervical parameter targets for alignment. Methods/UNASSIGNED:°) were excluded. Patients assessed: Meeting Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for NDI (<-15 ΔNDI). Ratios of correction were found for regional parameters categorized by Primary Ames Driver (C or CT). Decision tree analysis assessed cut-offs for differences associated with meeting NDI MCID at 1Y. Results/UNASSIGNED:TS-CL. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Certain ratios of correction of cervical parameters contribute to improving neck disability. Prioritizing these radiographic alignment parameters may help optimize patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing CD surgery.