Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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/BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic caused nationwide suspensions of elective surgeries due to reallocation of resources to the care of COVID-19 patients. Following resumption of elective cases, a significant proportion of patients continued to delay surgery, with many yet to reschedule, potentially prolonging their pain and impairment of function and causing detrimental long-term effects. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to examine differences between patients who have and have not rescheduled their spine surgery procedures originally cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to evaluate the reasons for continued deferment of spine surgeries even after the lifting of the mandated suspension of elective surgeries. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective case series at a single institution PATIENT SAMPLE: Included were 133 patients seen at a single institution where spine surgery was canceled due to a state-mandated suspension of elective surgeries from March to June, 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The measures assessed included preoperative diagnoses and neurological dysfunction, surgical characteristics, reasons for surgery deferment, and PROMIS scores of pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function. METHODS:Patient electronic medical records were reviewed. Patients who had not rescheduled their canceled surgery as of January 31, 2021, and did not have a reason noted in their charts were called to determine the reason for continued surgery deferment. Patients were divided into three groups: early rescheduled (ER), late rescheduled (LR), and not rescheduled (NR). ER patients had a date of surgery (DOS) prior to the city's Phase 4 reopening on July 20, 2020; LR patients had a DOS on or after that date. Statistical analysis of the group findings included analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test, independent samples T-test, and chi-square analysis with significance set at p≤.05. RESULTS:Out of 133 patients, 47.4% (63) were in the ER, 15.8% (21) in the LR, and 36.8% (49) in the NR groups. Demographics and baseline PROMIS scores were similar between groups. LR had more levels fused (3.6) than ER (1.6), p= .018 on Tukey HSD. NR (2.1) did not have different mean levels fused than LR or ER, both p= >.05 on Tukey HSD. LR had more three column osteotomies (14.3%) than ER and (1.6%) and NR (2.0%) p=.022, and fewer lumbar microdiscectomies (0%) compared to ER (20.6%) and NR (10.2%), p=.039. Other surgical characteristics were similar between groups. LR had a longer length of stay than ER (4.2 vs 2.4, p=.036). No patients in ER or LR had a nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Of NR, 2.0% have a future surgery date scheduled and 8.2% (4) are acquiring updated exams before rescheduling. 40.8% (20; 15.0% total cohort) continue to defer surgery over concern for COVID-19 exposure and 16.3% (8) for medical comorbidities. 6.1% (3) permanently canceled for symptom improvement. 8.2% (4) had follow-up recommendations for non-surgical management. 4.1% (2) are since deceased. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Over 1/3 of elective spine surgeries canceled due to COVID-19 have not been performed in the 8 months from when elective surgeries resumed in our institution to the end of the study. ER patients had less complex surgeries planned than LR. NR patients continue to defer surgery primarily over concern for COVID-19 exposure. The toll on the health of these patients as a result of the delay in treatment and on their lives due to their inability to return to normal function remains to be seen.

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