Faculty Bibliography

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: ASD surgery is associated with postoperative improvements in patient pain and function but is also associated with high complication rates and long recovery. Accordingly, if given a choice, patients may indicate they would not undergo surgery again. PURPOSE: At minimum two years postop, evaluate 1) surgically treated ASD patients for willingness to receive/not receive the same surgery, 2) surgeon willingness to perform/not perform the same surgery, 3) surgeon opinion if the corresponding patient would indicate they would/would not have the same surgery again. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Analysis of patient vs surgeon willingness to perform/receive surgery for ASD patients enrolled into a prospective, 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, patient and surgeon willingness to perform surgery.
Method(s): Surgically treated ASD patients, prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study from 2009-2018, were asked at minimum 2 years postop, using SRS-22r question 22 if, based upon their surgical and recovery experience, they would undergo the same surgery. Surgeons were matched to their corresponding patients and the surgeons asked if 1) surgeon would perform the same surgery on the patient and why/why not, 2) surgeon believed the patient would undergo the same surgery and why/why not. Patients were divided into those that indicated they would (yes) or not (no) have same surgery. Agreement between patient and surgeon willingness for same surgery was assessed and correlations between willingness for same surgery and postop complications, deformity improvement, and PROMs evaluated.
Result(s): Of 961 patients eligible for study, 580 were evaluated. The no group (n=108, 18.6%) had similar levels fused, osteotomies, duration of hospital and SICU stay, and major complications as the yes group. (n=472; 81.4%; p>0.05). No group members were younger (58.5 vs 61.6 years), more frail (ASD frailty scale 3.9 vs 3.3), and at minimum 2-years postop had more complications requiring surgery and worse postop improvements for all PROMs including ODI (3.8 vs 18.9), SF-36 PCS (1.8 vs 10) and SRS-22r total (0.4 vs 0.9), pain (0.5 vs 1.2), activity (0.2 vs0.7), and self-image (0.6 vs 1.3) than the yes group, respectively (p<0.05). MCID was reached in 28-56% of no group vs 62- 81% of yes group. Patient willingness to receive surgery varied by surgical institution (70% to 89%; p<0.05). Surgeons accurately identified yes group (91%) but poorly identified the no group (22%; p<0.05).
Conclusion(s): ASD patient willingness to undergo same surgery is important for counseling. Unwillingness for same surgery was associated with PROMs, MCID and complications requiring surgery. Surgeons were poorly able to identify patients unwilling to undergo the same surgery. More research is needed to understand patient experiences recovering from ASD surgeries. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

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: 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: Cervical deformity (CD) surgery can markedly improve patient quality of life. The longevity of CD correction and the mechanism of alignment deterioration are not well understood. PURPOSE: To investigate preoperative risk factors and failure mechanisms that erode CD corrections and the impact on functional outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a prospective CD database. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 155 operative CD patients with baseline (BL) and 1-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Alignment at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year: cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), C2 Slope (C2S), T1 slope (T1S), C2-C7 lordosis (CL), T1S-CL mismatch (TS-CL), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (mJOA).
Method(s): A retrospective review of a prospective database of operative CD patients was analyzed. Patients with baseline, 3-month, 6-month and 1-year cervical radiographs were included. Cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) <4cm was used to categorize patients as well-aligned vs malaligned. Additionally, three subsets were defined as follows: (1) patients who were malaligned preoperatively (cSVA>=4) and remained well aligned at 1 year postoperatively; (2) patients who were well-aligned but experienced alignment deterioration (cSVA>=4cm) up to 1 year postop, and; (3) patients who never attained cSVA <4cm. These groups were compared in terms of demographic factors, surgical factors, baseline radiographic parameters and radiographic and surgical outcomes at baseline and 1 year, using t-tests and X2 tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.
Result(s): A total of 155 patients were included (mean age 61.41, 60.9% F). The entire cohort was analyzed at all time points for alignment using cSVA. Among 89 patients with X-rays at every time point, 30 patients (34%) maintained their good alignment correction at 1-year postop. Seventeen patients (19%) experienced alignment deterioration and 42 patients (46%) never reached cSVA <4cm at any time point. Four patients lost their correction at 3 months, 6 patients at 6 months and 8 patients were malaligned by 1 year. The never-aligned cohort was significantly older when compared to those who maintained alignment or those who deteriorated (65.9 vs 61.8 vs 58.8, p=0.038). Patients who never achieved good alignment and those who suffered deterioration had a significantly higher rate of DJK (42.9% vs 47.1% vs 3.3%, p=0.001). Other failure mechanisms in the deterioration group included loss of subjacent spinopelvic compensation and PJK. At baseline, patients with alignment deterioration had a smaller cSVA compared to those who maintained or never reached good alignment (40.5 vs 52.0 and 60.1mm, p=0.001), and less TK (-43.4 vs -55.9 vs -61.4, p=0.049). At 1-year postop, patients with deterioration had worsening of their mJOA score at 6 months compared to those who maintained or never reached proper alignment (2.50 vs 0.04 vs 1.20, p=0.032). There were no significant differences in smokers, BMI, frailty, osteoporosis, levels fused, UIV, LIV, EBL, operative time, rod diameter, rod material, utilization 3-column osteotomy, mean osteotomy grade, in construct (fused) loss of alignment or revision rate between the groups (all p>.05)
Conclusion(s): Cervical deformity correction surgery failed to achieve acceptable sagittal alignment in 46% of patients. In those with successful correction, 36% suffered alignment deterioration within 1 year. Distal junctional kyphosis was the most common failure mechanism leading to loss of correction. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Robot-guided lumbar instrumented fusion (RGLF) for accurate pedicle screw placement is increasingly popular. Learning curve (LC) has been reported to be short, but simple comparison of a set number of early to later cases may oversimplify the LC. This study offers an analysis of a single institution LC for RGLF as it relates to increasing case complexity as determined by Spine Surgical Invasive Index (SII) as described by Mirza, and advanced techniques. PURPOSE: To determine if RGLF is related to SII and is more dynamic than previously described. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single-center retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 346 patients undergoing RGLF at a single institution from 2018 to 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Case complexity indicators (levels fused, SII, iliac fixation, single position surgery), radiation dose, procedure/operative time (PTime/OpTime), EBL, LOS, failed registration, robotic mechanical failures, perioperative complications and OR returns.
METHOD(S): All RGLFs at a single institution were included. Outcome measures indicating case complexity (levels fused, SII, iliac fixation, single position surgery) underwent regression analysis to determine risk factors for robot-related complications. Peaks in these characteristics over the course of 346 cases were identified. Outcomes including radiation dose, procedure/operative time (PTime/OpTime), EBL, LOS, failed registration, robotic mechanical failures, perioperative complications, and returns to OR were analyzed in stepwise fashion by each consecutive case using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate.
RESULT(S): A total of 346 RGLFs included. No significant changes in demographics over time. SII was an independent risk factor for robot registration and intraoperative mechanical failures on multivariate regression analysis (p<0.001). SII had significant peaks between 10 to 20 cases and 165 to 330 cases. The following outcomes were overcome during a first LC corresponding to an early SII peak: PTime (401.2+/-135.6 vs 361.4+/-99.7 min; p= 0.047), OpTime (326.0+/-129.4 vs 279.4+/-91.9 min; p= 0.034), robot mechanical failures (26.7% vs 10.1%; p=0.046), all postop complications (60.0% vs 29.2%; p=0.037), ileus (9.0% vs 3.3%; p=0.046), urinary complications (6.4% vs 1.9%; p=0.043). A later LC corresponding to a second SII peak saw significant changes in PTime per level (291.1+/-84.7 vs 259.5+/-108.5 min; p=0.017), OpTime per level (223.6+/-70.4 vs 200.9+/-90.7 min; p= 0.038), EBL (316.7+/-264.0 vs 247.4+/-204.6 mL; p=0.035), LOS (3.8+/-2.2 vs 2.7+/-1.1 days; p=0.001), all intraoperative complications (23.8% vs 13.2%; p=0.036), surgical site infections (2.54% vs 10.34%; p=0.022), robot registration failures (8.3% vs 2.1%; p=0.039), new neurological deficits (5.2% vs 0.0%; p=0.050), instrumentation failures (1.7% vs 3.7%; p =0.043), and returns to OR for pedicle screw revision (1.2% vs 8.9%; p=0.046) or for neurological deficit (3.9% vs 0.0%; p=0.050).
CONCLUSION(S): Two learning curves were observed that mirrored significant peaks in SII. The second, more significant, wave of complications was observed with increased surgical complexity. This suggests a longer, more dynamic learning curve than has been previously described. Avoiding surgeries with high SII at the beginning of RGLF experience may prevent early complications. 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),

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Hyperextension of C0-C2 is a painful compensatory mechanism used to maintain horizontal gaze that is analogous to high pelvic tilt to maintain upright posture. The magnitude and impact of relaxation of this hyperextension following CD correction are not well understood. PURPOSE: To investigate whether correction of cervical sagittal malalignment allows for relaxation of C0-C2 hyperextension and improved clinical outcome. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 65 ACD patients with 1- or 2-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic alignment, range of motion (ROM).
Method(s): CD patients undergoing surgery short of the occiput and the pelvis were included. In addition to the classic alignment parameters, ROM and reserve of extension were calculated across the C2-C7 and C0-C2 segments. After describing the cohort in terms of preoperative information, correlations and hierarchical stepwise regressions investigated the association between C2-C7 correction and change in C0-C2 reserve of extension while controlling for maintenance of horizontal gaze. Stratification by DELTAC2-C7 percentile was conducted followed by paired t-tests to investigate changes in TK, C0-C2 and reserve of extension within each percentile.
Result(s): Sixty-five patients were included (61.8yo+/-9.6, 68%F). At baseline, they presented with a cervical kyphotic alignment (C2-C7: -11.7degree+/-18.2; TS-CL: 38.6degree+/-18.6), a negative global alignment (SVA: -12mm+/-71), and hyperlordosis at C0-C2 (33.2degree+/-11.8). The ROM was 25.7degree+/-17.7 and 21.3degree+/-9.9 at C2-C7 and C0-C2, respectively, with an associated reserve of extension of ~9degree for each segment. Limited C0-C2 ROM and reserve of extension significantly correlated with the Neck Disability Index (r=-0.371 & -0.394) and with decreased general health (r=0.455 & 0.512) (all p<0.005) The mean number of levels treated was 7.0+/-3.1 (24.6% ACDF, 43.1% posterior), with 49.2% of the patients receiving an osteotomy, and 16.9% a 3CO. At 1 year, C2-C7 increased to 5.5degree+/-13.4, SVA became neutral (12mm+/-54), C0-C2 decreased to 27.7degree+/-11.7, and TK increased to -49.4+/-18.1 (all p <0.001). At C2-C7 ROM decreased significantly to 9.5degree+/-14.1, and increased to 27.6degree+/-8.1 at C0-C2 without change in reserve of extension. The horizontal gaze significantly improved (4.5+/-13.3 vs -0.5+/-9.3 p=0.003). Controlling horizontal gaze, change in C2-C7 lordosis significantly correlated with increased TK (r=-0.615, p<0.01), decreased C0-C2 (r=-0.686, p<0.001), and increased C0-C2 reserve of extension (r=0.414, p<0.015). Larger C0-C2 ROM and reserve of extension correlated with decreased in Neck Disability Index (r=-0.571 & -0.470 p<0.05). Stratification by DELTAC2-C7 percentile highlighted the reciprocal change above and below the fusion. Within the lowest percentile (DELTAC2-C7: 2degree+/-9.6), no significant difference was noticed between pre and 1 year, while within the highest percentile (DELTAC2-C7: -42.8+/-14.1), C0-C2 decreased (-9.7degree+/-10.5, p=0.001), TK kyphosis increased (14.3degree+/-7.5, p<0.001) and C0-C2 reserve of extension increased (5.8degree+/-6.4, p=0.026). Subanalysis on patients with available 2-year data (N=42) demonstrated similar trends.
Conclusion(s): Correction of cervical malalignment can significantly impact proximal (C0-C2) and distal (T2-T12) compensation. Restoration of a more natural alignment resulted in an increase of the reserve of extension between C0-C2 and was associated with improved clinical outcomes. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Since circumferential adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery can lead to high surgical burden for the patient, surgeons may elect to stage these procedures during the same hospitalization. As a result, there is a trend toward planning same-hospitalization staged ASD surgeries by performing an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) prior to a subsequent staged posterior fusion. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine optimal timing for staging (early vs delayed) thoracolumbar ASD surgery within the same hospitalization. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a multicenter database. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 158 surgical ASD patients undergoing anterior and staged posterior spinal fusion >=5 levels. OUTCOME MEASURES: Our outcome measures were 90-day complication rates, postoperative alignment, and 2-year ODI.
METHOD(S): Using a prospective, multicenter database, we identified 158 surgical ASD patients undergoing first an anterior surgery followed by a staged posterior spinal fusion >=5 levels during the same hospitalization. Stratum-specific likelihood ratio (SSLR) analysis was performed to calculate a cutoff point beyond which 90-day complications were increased. The cutoff generated through SSLR were confirmed with multivariable logistic regression analysis controlling for age, gender, levels fused for each stage, preoperative alignment, three-column osteotomy, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. The outcome measures were 90-day complication rates, postoperative alignment, and 2-year ODI. Multivariable analyses were performed with logistic, Poisson and linear regressions where appropriate.
RESULT(S): Utilization of staged procedures increased 4x from 2008-2019, and the mean staging interval was 3 days (range 1-8). On SSLR analysis, patients were divided into two staging categories based on complication risk: early (<6 days, range 1-5, N=139) versus delayed (>= 6 day, range 6-8, N=19). On bivariate analysis, the delayed group had higher 90-day complication rates (68.4% vs 32.4%, p=0.002) and longer operative times (638 min vs 739 min, p=0.020) relative to the early group. Adjusting for covariates on multivariable analysis, patients with delayed staging had significantly greater odds of 90-day complications (OR=7.57, p=0.006), and longer total operative time (beta=119, p=0.035). With respect to specific complications, delayed staging carries increased odds of infection compared to early staging (OR=11.8 p=0.031). There were no significant differences in postoperative alignment or 2-year ODI between the groups (p>0.05 for all).
CONCLUSION(S): Compared to early staging (< 6 days) of ALIF and subsequent staged posterior fusion, delayed staging (>= 6 days) is associated with greater odds of 90-day complications, particularly infection. With the growing trend toward staged ASD surgeries, efforts should be made to shorten the interval between ALIF and subsequent posterior fusion. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright