Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgeons may preferentially limit fusion levels for younger vs older ASD patients to maintain motion segments and optimize postoperative function. Few data exist comparing the functional impact of upper thoracic (UT) vs thoracolumbar (TL) upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) in younger vs older ASD patients undergoing long fusion to the pelvis. PURPOSE: Evaluate patient reported functional impact of UT vs TL UIV in younger vs older ASD patients undergoing long fusion to the pelvis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Surgically treated ASD patients prospectively enrolled into multicenter study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Numeric rating scale (NRS) back and leg pain, Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire (SRS-22r), Short Form-36v2 questionnaire (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), estimated blood loss, duration of hospital stay, postoperative complications, revision spine surgery.
METHOD(S): Surgically treated ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multicenter ASD study were divided into 2 age groups (younger= <65 years, older= > 65 years) and separated according to UIV (TL= L2-T7; UT= T6-T1). Study inclusion criteria; 1) surgery for Lumbar (L), Sagittal (S), or Mixed (M) deformities (as per SRS-Schwab ASD classification), 2) fusion to the pelvis, 3) minimum 5 levels fused, and 4) minimum 2 year postop follow up. Surgery for double major or thoracic scoliosis were excluded. PSM was used to match preop patient demographics, scoliosis, and sagittal spinopelvic parameters including PI-LL, TK, SVS, and TPA. Surgical data evaluated and impact of UIV upon patient reported functional outcomes compared for UT vs TL for younger vs older.
RESULT(S): From 2008-2018, 435 of 717 eligible surgically treated patients were evaluated; younger (n=193; mean age 57.6 years) and older (n=242; mean age 72.3 years), mean levels fused UT=17.4, TL=10.7 (p<0.05). Preop spine deformity, demographics, and performance of osteotomies were similar for matched UT vs TL in younger and older (p>0.05). Surgical blood loss, duration of SICU and hospital stay was greater for UT vs TL in younger and older (p<0.05). UT had more revision surgery than TL due to implant failures in younger (20% vs 3%) and older (16% vs 1%), respectively (p<0.05). Older UT had more major complications than older TL (65% vs 30%). At minimum 2 year postoperative follow up spine deformity correction and all PROMs (including improvements and final values) including SRS-22r activity, SF-36 physical function, SF-36 role physical, SF-36 social function and SF-36 vitality were similar UT vs TL in younger and older (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION(S): Younger ASD patients fused to the pelvis do not report more physical restrictions for UT vs TL UIV compared to older ASD patients, however blood loss, SICU and hospital stay and complications were greater for UT vs TL in younger and older cohorts. When deciding upon UIV for ASD patients, the minimal impact of UT vs TL UIV upon patient reported outcomes must be offset by cognizance of a longer hospital stay and potential for greater postoperative complications for UT fusions especially in older patients. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Deterioration of global coronal alignment (GCA) may be associated with worse outcomes after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The impact of fusion length and upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) selection on patients with this complication is unclear. The authors' objective was to compare outcomes between long sacropelvic fusion with upper-thoracic (UT) UIV and those with lower-thoracic (LT) UIV in patients with worsening GCA ≥ 1 cm. METHODS:This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter database of consecutive ASD patients. Index operations involved instrumented fusion from sacropelvis to thoracic spine. Global coronal deterioration was defined as worsening GCA ≥ 1 cm from preoperation to 2-year follow-up. RESULTS:Of 875 potentially eligible patients, 560 (64%) had complete 2-year follow-up data, of which 144 (25.7%) demonstrated worse GCA at 2-year postoperative follow-up (35.4% of UT patients vs 64.6% of LT patients). At baseline, UT patients were younger (61.6 ± 9.9 vs 64.5 ± 8.6 years, p = 0.008), a greater percentage of UT patients had osteoporosis (35.3% vs 16.1%, p = 0.009), and UT patients had worse scoliosis (51.9° ± 22.5° vs 32.5° ± 16.3°, p < 0.001). Index operations were comparable, except UT patients had longer fusions (16.4 ± 0.9 vs 9.7 ± 1.2 levels, p < 0.001) and operative duration (8.6 ± 3.2 vs 7.6 ± 3.0 hours, p = 0.023). At 2-year follow-up, global coronal deterioration averaged 2.7 ± 1.4 cm (1.9 to 4.6 cm, p < 0.001), scoliosis improved (39.3° ± 20.8° to 18.0° ± 14.8°, p < 0.001), and sagittal spinopelvic alignment improved significantly in all patients. UT patients maintained smaller positive C7 sagittal vertical axis (2.7 ± 5.7 vs 4.7 ± 5.7 cm, p = 0.014). Postoperative 2-year health-related quality of life (HRQL) significantly improved from baseline for all patients. HRQL comparisons demonstrated that UT patients had worse Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r) Activity (3.2 ± 1.0 vs 3.6 ± 0.8, p = 0.040) and SRS-22r Satisfaction (3.9 ± 1.1 vs 4.3 ± 0.8, p = 0.021) scores. Also, fewer UT patients improved by ≥ 1 minimal clinically important difference in numerical rating scale scores for leg pain (41.3% vs 62.7%, p = 0.020). Comparable percentages of UT and LT patients had complications (208 total, including 53 reoperations, 77 major complications, and 78 minor complications), but the percentage of reoperated patients was higher among UT patients (35.3% vs 18.3%, p = 0.023). UT patients had higher reoperation rates of rod fracture (13.7% vs 2.2%, p = 0.006) and pseudarthrosis (7.8% vs 1.1%, p = 0.006) but not proximal junctional kyphosis (9.8% vs 8.6%, p = 0.810). CONCLUSIONS:In ASD patients with worse 2-year GCA after long sacropelvic fusion, UT UIV was associated with worse 2-year HRQL compared with LT UIV. This may suggest that residual global coronal malalignment is clinically less tolerated in ASD patients with longer fusion to the proximal thoracic spine. These results may inform operative planning and improve patient counseling.

OBJECTIVE:Few studies have compared fractional curve correction after long fusion between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for adult symptomatic thoracolumbar/lumbar scoliosis (ASLS). The objective of this study was to compare fractional correction, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and complications associated with L4-S1 TLIF versus those of ALIF as an operative treatment of ASLS. METHODS:The authors retrospectively analyzed a prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity database. Inclusion required a fractional curve ≥ 10°, a thoracolumbar/lumbar curve ≥ 30°, index TLIF or ALIF performed at L4-5 and/or L5-S1, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. TLIF and ALIF patients were propensity matched according to the number and type of interbody fusion at L4-S1. RESULTS:Of 135 potentially eligible consecutive patients, 106 (78.5%) achieved the minimum 2-year follow-up (mean ± SD age 60.6 ± 9.3 years, 85% women, 44.3% underwent TLIF, and 55.7% underwent ALIF). Index operations had mean ± SD 12.2 ± 3.6 posterior levels, 86.6% of patients underwent iliac fixation, 67.0% underwent TLIF/ALIF at L4-5, and 84.0% underwent TLIF/ALIF at L5-S1. Compared with TLIF patients, ALIF patients had greater cage height (10.9 ± 2.1 mm for TLIF patients vs 14.5 ± 3.0 mm for ALIF patients, p = 0.001) and lordosis (6.3° ± 1.6° for TLIF patients vs 17.0° ± 9.9° for ALIF patients, p = 0.001) and longer operative duration (6.7 ± 1.5 hours for TLIF patients vs 8.9 ± 2.5 hours for ALIF patients, p < 0.001). In all patients, final alignment improved significantly in terms of the fractional curve (20.2° ± 7.0° to 6.9° ± 5.2°), maximum coronal Cobb angle (55.0° ± 14.8° to 23.9° ± 14.3°), C7 sagittal vertical axis (5.1 ± 6.2 cm to 2.3 ± 5.4 cm), pelvic tilt (24.6° ± 8.1° to 22.7° ± 9.5°), and lumbar lordosis (32.3° ± 18.8° to 51.4° ± 14.1°) (all p < 0.05). Matched analysis demonstrated comparable fractional correction (-13.6° ± 6.7° for TLIF patients vs -13.6° ± 8.1° for ALIF patients, p = 0.982). In all patients, final HRQL improved significantly in terms of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (42.4 ± 16.3 to 24.2 ± 19.9), physical component summary (PCS) score of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (32.6 ± 9.3 to 41.3 ± 11.7), and Scoliosis Research Society-22r score (2.9 ± 0.6 to 3.7 ± 0.7) (all p < 0.05). Matched analysis demonstrated worse ODI (30.9 ± 21.1 for TLIF patients vs 17.9 ± 17.1 for ALIF patients, p = 0.017) and PCS (38.3 ± 12.0 for TLIF patients vs 45.3 ± 10.1 for ALIF patients, p = 0.020) scores for TLIF patients at the last follow-up (despite no differences in these parameters at baseline). The rates of total complications were similar (76.6% for TLIF patients vs 71.2% for ALIF patients, p = 0.530), but significantly more TLIF patients had rod fracture (28.6% of TLIF patients vs 7.1% of ALIF patients, p = 0.036). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that a 1-mm increase in L4-5 TLIF cage height led to a 2.2° reduction in L4 coronal tilt (p = 0.011), and a 1° increase in L5-S1 ALIF cage lordosis led to a 0.4° increase in L5-S1 segmental lordosis (p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS:Operative treatment of ASLS with L4-S1 TLIF versus ALIF demonstrated comparable mean fractional curve correction (66.7% vs 64.8%), despite use of significantly larger, more lordotic ALIF cages. TLIF cage height had a significant impact on leveling L4 coronal tilt, whereas ALIF cage lordosis had a significant impact on restoration of lumbosacral lordosis. The advantages of TLIF may include reduced operative duration and hospitalization; however, associated HRQL was inferior and more rod fractures were detected in the TLIF patients included in this study.

BACKGROUND:Operative treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD) can be very challenging with high complication rates. It is well established that patients benefit from such treatment; however, the surgical outcomes for patients with severe sagittal deformity have not been reported. OBJECTIVE:To report the outcomes of patients undergoing surgical correction for severe sagittal deformity. METHODS:Retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter ASD database. Inclusion criteria: operative patients age ≥18, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) ≥15 cm, mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) ≥30°, and/or lumbar kyphosis ≥5° with minimum 2 yr follow-up. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores including minimal clinically important difference (MCID)/substantial clinical benefit (SCB), sagittal and coronal radiographic values, demographic, frailty, surgical, and complication data were collected. Comparisons between 2 yr postoperative and baseline HRQOL/radiographic data were made. P < .05 was significant. RESULTS:A total of 138 patients were included from 502 operative patients (54.3% Female, Average (Avg) age 63.3 ± 11.5 yr). Avg operating room (OR) time 386.2 ± 136.5 min, estimated blood loss (EBL) 1829.8 ± 1474.6 cc. A total of 71(51.4%) had prior fusion. A total of 89.9% were posterior fusion only. Mean posterior levels fused 11.5 ± 4.1. A total of 44.9% had a 3-column osteotomy. All 2 yr postoperative radiographic parameters were significantly improved compared to baseline (P < .001 for all). All 2yr HRQOL measures were significantly improved compared to baseline (P < .004 for all). A total of 46.6% to 73.8% of patients met either MCID/SCB for all HRQOL. A total of 74.6% of patients had at least 1 complication, 11.6% had 4 or more complications, 33.3% had minimum 1 major complication, and 42(30.4%) had a postop revision. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients with severe sagittal malalignment benefit from surgical correction at 2 yr postoperative both radiographically and clinically despite having a high complication rate.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:AI algorithms have shown promise in medical image analysis. Previous studies of ASD clusters have analyzed alignment metrics-this study sought to complement these efforts by analyzing images of sagittal anatomical spinopelvic landmarks. We hypothesized that an AI algorithm would cluster preoperative lateral radiographs into groups with distinct morphology. METHODS:This was a retrospective review of a multicenter, prospectively collected database of adult spinal deformity. A total of 915 patients with adult spinal deformity and preoperative lateral radiographs were included. A 2 × 3, self-organizing map-a form of artificial neural network frequently employed in unsupervised classification tasks-was developed. The mean spine shape was plotted for each of the six clusters. Alignment, surgical characteristics, and outcomes were compared. RESULTS:Qualitatively, clusters C and D exhibited only mild sagittal plane deformity. Clusters B, E, and F, however, exhibited marked positive sagittal balance and loss of lumbar lordosis. Cluster A had mixed characteristics, likely representing compensated deformity. Patients in clusters B, E, and F disproportionately underwent 3-CO. PJK and PJF were particularly prevalent among clusters A and E. Among clusters B and F, patients who experienced PJK had significantly greater positive sagittal balance than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS:This study clustered preoperative lateral radiographs of ASD patients into groups with highly distinct overall spinal morphology and association with sagittal alignment parameters, baseline HRQOL, and surgical characteristics. The relationship between SVA and PJK differed by cluster. This study represents significant progress toward incorporation of computer vision into clinically relevant classification systems in adult spinal deformity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV/UNASSIGNED:Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to define a surgical invasiveness threshold that predicts major complications after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery; use this threshold to categorize patients into quartiles by invasiveness; and determine the odds of major complications by quartile. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Understanding the relationship between surgical invasiveness and major complications is important for estimating the likelihood of major complications after ASD surgery. METHODS:Using a multicenter database, we identified 574 ASD patients (more than 5 levels fused; mean age, 60 ± 15 years) with minimum 2-year follow-up. Invasiveness was calculated as the ASD Surgical and Radiographic (ASD-SR) score. Youden index was used to identify the invasiveness score cut-off associated with optimal sensitivity and specificity for predicting major complications. Resulting high- and low-invasiveness groups were divided in half to create quartiles. Odds of developing a major complication were analyzed for each quartile using logistic regression (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS:The ASD-SR cutoff score that maximally predicted major complications was 90 points. ASD-SR quartiles were 0 to 65 (Q1), 66 to 89 (Q2), 90 to 119 (Q3), and ≥120 (Q4). Risk of a major complication was 17% in Q1, 21% in Q2, 35% in Q3, and 33% in Q4 (P < 0.001). Comparisons of adjacent quartiles showed an increase in the odds of a major complication from Q2 to Q3 (odds ratio [OR] 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-3.0), but not from Q1 to Q2 or from Q3 to Q4. Patients with ASD-SR scores ≥90 were 1.9 times as likely to have a major complication than patients with scores <90 (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.9). Mean ASD-SR scores above and below 90 points were 121 ± 25 and 63 ± 17, respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The odds of major complications after ASD surgery are significantly greater when the procedure has an ASD-SR score ≥90. ASD-SR score can be used to counsel patients regarding these increased odds.Level of Evidence: 3.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes of Coflex interspinous device versus laminectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization device (CID) is indicated for one- or two-level lumbar stenosis with grade 1 stable spondylolisthesis in adult patients, as an alternative to laminectomy, or laminectomy and fusion. CID provides stability against progressive spondylolisthesis, retains motion, and prevents further disc space collapse. METHODS:Patients ≥18 years' old with lumbar stenosis and grade 1 stable spondylolisthesis who underwent either primary single-level decompression and implantation of CID, or single-level laminectomy alone were included with a minimum 90-day follow-up at a single academic institution. Clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative complications were reviewed until the latest follow-up. χ2 and independent samples t tests were used for analysis. RESULTS:Eighty-three patients (2007-2019) were included: 37 cases of single-level laminectomy (48.6% female) were compared to 46 single-level CID (50% female). CID cohort was older (CID 69.0 ± 9.4 vs. laminectomy 64.2 ± 11.0, P = 0.042) and had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (CID 2.59 ± 0.73 vs. laminectomy 2.17 ± 0.48, P = 0.020). CID patients had higher estimated blood loss (EBL) (97.50 ± 77.76 vs. 52.84 ± 50.63 mL, P = 0.004), longer operative time (141.91 ± 47.88 vs. 106.81 ± 41.30 minutes, P = 0.001), and longer length of stay (2.0 ± 1.5 vs. 1.1 ± 1.0 days, P = 0.001). Total perioperative complications (21.7% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.035) and instrumentation-related complication was higher in CID (10.9% vs. 0% laminectomy group, P = 0.039). There were no other significant differences between the groups in demographics or outcomes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Single-level CID devices had higher perioperative 90-day complications, longer operative time, length of stay, higher EBL compared to laminectomies alone. Similar overall revision and neurologic complication rates were noted compared to laminectomy at last follow-up.Level of Evidence: 3.

This retrospective cohort study describes adult cervical deformity(ACD) patients with Ames-ACD classification at baseline(BL) and 1-year post-operatively and assesses the relationship of improvement in Ames modifiers with clinical outcomes. Patients ≥ 18yrs with BL and post-op(1-year) radiographs were included. Patients were categorized with Ames classification by primary deformity descriptors (C = cervical; CT = cervicothoracic junction; T = thoracic; S = coronal) and alignment/myelopathy modifiers(C2-C7 Sagittal Vertical Axis[cSVA], T1 Slope-Cervical Lordosis[TS-CL], Horizontal Gaze[Horiz], mJOA). Univariate analysis evaluated demographics, clinical intervention, and Ames deformity descriptor. Patients were evaluated for radiographic improvement by Ames classification and reaching Minimal Clinically Important Differences(MCID) for mJOA, Neck Disability Index(NDI), and EuroQuol-5D(EQ5D). A total of 73 patients were categorized: C = 41(56.2%), CT = 18(24.7%), T = 9(12.3%), S = 5(6.8%). By Ames modifier 1-year improvement, 13(17.8%) improved in mJOA, 26(35.6%) in cSVA grade, 19(26.0%) in Horiz, and 15(20.5%) in TS-CL. The overall proportion of patients without severe Ames modifier grades at 1-year was as follows: 100% cSVA, 27.4% TS-CL, 67.1% Horiz, 69.9% mJOA. 1-year post-operatively, severe myelopathy(mJOA = 3) prevalence differed between Ames-ACD descriptors (C = 26.3%, CT = 15.4%, T = 0.0%, S = 0.0%, p = 0.033). Improvement in mJOA modifier correlated with reaching 1-year NDI MCID in the overall cohort (r = 0.354,p = 0.002). For C descriptors, cSVA improvement correlated with reaching 1-year NDI MCID (r = 0.387,p = 0.016). Improvement in more than one radiographic Ames modifier correlated with reaching 1-year mJOA MCID (r = 0.344,p = 0.003) and with reaching more than one MCID for mJOA, NDI, and EQ-5D (r = 0.272,p = 0.020). In conclusion, improvements in radiographic Ames modifier grades correlated with improvement in 1-year postoperative clinical outcomes. Although limited in scope, this analysis suggests the Ames-ACD classification may describe cervical deformity patients' alignment and outcomes at 1-year.

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:The interactions between hip osteoarthritis (OA) and spinal malalignment are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of total hip arthroplasty (THA) on standing spinopelvic alignment. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:In this retrospective cohort study, patients undergoing THA for OA with pre-and postoperative full-body radiographs were included. Standing spinopelvic parameters were measured. Contralateral hip was graded on the Kellgren-Lawrence scale. Pre-and postoperative alignment parameters were compared by paired t-test. The severity of preoperative thoracolumbar deformity was measured using TPA. Linear regression was performed to assess the impact of preoperative TPA and changes in spinal alignment. Patients were separated into low and high TPA (<20 or >/=20 deg) and change in parameters were compared between groups by t-test. Similarly, the influence of K-L grade, age, and PI were also tested. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= .004). Preoperative TPA was significantly associated with the change in PI-LL, SVA, and TPA. High TPA patients significantly decreased SVA more than low TPA patients. There was no significant impact of contralateral hip OA, PI, or age on change in alignment parameters. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Spinopelvic alignment changes after THA, evident by a reduction in SVA. Preoperative spinal sagittal deformity impacts this change. Level of evidence: III.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Longitudinal cohort. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between patient satisfaction, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic parameters in adult spine deformity (ASD) patients undergoing three-column osteotomies (3CO). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Identifying factors that influence patient satisfaction in ASD is important. Evidence suggests Scoliosis Research Society-22R (SRS-22R) Self-Image domain correlates with patient satisfaction in patients with ASD. METHODS:This is a retrospective review of ASD patients enrolled in a prospective, multicenter database undergoing a 3CO with complete SRS-22R pre-op and minimum 2-years postop. Spearman correlations were used to evaluate associations between the 2-year SRS Satisfaction score and changes in SRS-22R domain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and radiographic parameters. RESULTS:Of 135 patients eligible for 2-year follow-up, 98 patients (73%) had complete pre- and 2-year postop data. The cohort was mostly female (69%) with mean BMI of 29.7 kg/m2 and age of 61.0 years. Mean levels fused was 12.9 with estimated blood loss of 2695 cc and OR time of 407 minutes; 27% were revision surgeries. There was a statistically significant improvement between pre- and 2-year post-op PROMs and all radiographic parameters except Coronal Vertical Axis. The majority of patients had an SRS Satisfaction score of ≥3.0 (90%) or ≥4.0 (68%), consistent with a moderate ceiling effect. Correlations of patient satisfaction was significant for Pain (0.43, P < 0.001), Activity (0.39, P < 0.001), Mental (0.38, P = 0.001) Self-Image (0.52, P < 0.001). ODI and Short-Form-36 Physical component summary had a moderate correlation as well, with mental component summary being weak. There was no statistically significant correlation between any radiographic or operative parameters and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There was statistically significant improvement in all PROMs and radiographic parameters, except coronal vertical axis at 2 years in ASD patients undergoing 3CO. Improvement in SRS Self-Image domain has the strongest correlation with patient satisfaction.Level of Evidence: 3.