Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:This study evaluates the impact of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and knee arthroplasty on alignments and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMS) of patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery. BACKGROUND:The relationship between knee OA and spinal alignment in patients with ASD is incompletely understood. It is also unknown how patients with knee arthroplasty and ASD compare to ASD patients with native knees. METHODS:Baseline full-body radiographs were used, and hip and knee OA were graded by two independent reviewers using the KL classification. Spinopelvic parameters and PROMs were compared across the different knee OA groups and compared between patients with knee replacement and native knees. RESULTS:199 patients with bilateral non severe OA (G1), 31 patients with unilateral severe knee OA (G2), and 60 patients with bilateral severe knee OA (G3). Patients with severe knee OA presented with worse spinopelvic parameters. However, after multivariable regression analysis controlling for age, frailty, PI, T1PA, knee OA was an independent predictor of knee flexion (G1:-0.02±7.3, G2: 7.8±9.4, G3: 4.5±8.7, P<0.001), and ankle dorsiflexion (G1: 2.3±4.0, G2: 6.6±4.5, G3: 5.1±4.1, P<0.001). There was no difference in PROMs (P>0.05). Secondary analysis included 96 patients: 48 patients (50%) with non-severe knee OA, and 48 patients (50%) with knee replacement. There was no difference in radiographic parameters or PROMs between the groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this study of complex ASD patients, patients with worse spinal deformity were more likely to have concomitant knee OA. Knee OA was shown to be a predictor of knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion angles, but was not associated with worse PROMs in this study population. Patients with knee arthroplasty, however, had comparable spinal alignment and PROMs relative to those with mild OA.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To investigate the cost-effectiveness and impact of prophylactic techniques on the development of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) in the context of postoperative alignment. METHODS:Adult spinal deformity patients with fusion to pelvis and 2-year data were included. Patients receiving PJK prophylaxis (hook, tether, cement, minimally-invasive surgery approach) were compared to those who did not. These cohorts were further stratified into "Matched" and "Unmatched" groups based on achievement of age-adjusted alignment criteria. Costs were calculated using the Diagnosis-Related Group costs accounting for PJK prophylaxis, postoperative complications, outpatient health care encounters, revisions, and medical-related readmissions. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated using Short Form-36 converted to Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) and used an annual 3% discount rate. Multivariate analysis controlling for age, sex, levels fused, and baseline deformity severity assessed outcomes of developing PJK/PJF if matched and/or with use of PJK prophylaxis. RESULTS:A total of 738 adult spinal deformity patients met inclusion criteria (age: 63.9 ± 9.9, body mass index: 28.5 ± 5.7, Charlson comorbidity index: 2.0 ± 1.7). Multivariate analysis revealed patients corrected to age-adjusted criteria postoperatively had lower rates of developing PJK or PJF (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, [0.2-0.8]; P = .011) with the use of prophylaxis. Among those unmatched in T1 pelvic angle, pelvic incidence lumbar lordosis mismatch, and pelvic tilt, prophylaxis reduced the likelihood of developing PJK (OR: 0.5, [0.3-0.9]; P = .023) and PJF (OR: 0.1, [0.03-0.5]; P = .004). Analysis of covariance analysis revealed patients matched in age-adjusted alignment had better cost-utility at 2 years compared with those without prophylaxis ($361 539.25 vs $419 919.43; P < .001). Patients unmatched in age-adjusted criteria also generated better cost ($88 348.61 vs $101 318.07; P = .005) and cost-utility ($450 190.80 vs $564 108.86; P < .001) with use of prophylaxis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite additional surgical cost, the optimization of radiographic realignment in conjunction with prophylaxis of the proximal junction appeared to be a more cost-effective strategy, primarily because of the minimization of reoperations secondary to mechanical failure. Even among those not achieving optimal alignment, junctional prophylactic measures were shown to improve cost efficiency.

BACKGROUND:Changing from standing to sitting positions requires rotation of the femur from an almost vertical plane to the horizontal plane. Osteoarthritis of the hip limits hip extension, resulting in less ability to recruit spinopelvic tilt (SPT) while standing and requiring increased SPT while sitting to compensate for the loss of hip range of motion. To date, the effect of total hip arthroplasty (THA) on spinopelvic sitting and standing mechanics has not been reported, particularly in the setting of patients with coexistent sagittal plane spinal deformity. METHODS:A retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years of age undergoing unilateral THA for hip osteoarthritis with sitting and standing radiographs made before and after THA. Alignment was analyzed at baseline and follow-up after THA in both standing and sitting positions in a relaxed posture with the fingers resting on top of the clavicles. Patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of sagittal plane deformity preoperatively into 3 groups: no sagittal plane deformity (normal), thoracolumbar (TL) deformity (pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis [PI-LL] mismatch > 10° and/or T1-pelvic angle [TPA] > 20°), or apparent deformity (PI-LL ≤ 10° and TPA ≤ 20°, but sagittal vertical axis [SVA] > 50 mm). RESULTS:In this study, 192 patients were assessed: 64 had TL deformity, 39 had apparent deformity, and 89 had normal alignment. Overall, patients demonstrated a reduction in standing SVA (45 to 34.1 mm; p < 0.001) and an increase in SPT (14.6° to 15.7°; p = 0.03) after THA. There was a greater change in standing SVA (p < 0.001) among patients with apparent deformity (-29.0 mm) compared with patients with normal alignment (0.9 mm) and patients with TL deformity (-16.3 mm). Those with apparent deformity also experienced the greatest difference (p = 0.03) in postural SPT change (moving from standing to sitting) (-10.1°) from before to after THA when compared with those with normal alignment (-3.6°) and TL deformity (-1.2°). The difference in postural SVA change from before to after THA was also greatest (p < 0.001) in those with apparent deformity (32.1 mm) compared with those with normal alignment (6.5 mm) and TL deformity (17.3 mm). CONCLUSIONS:Postural changes in spinopelvic alignment vary after THA depending on the presence of TL deformity or apparent deformity due to hip flexion contracture. Patients with apparent deformity had larger changes in standing and sitting alignment than patients with TL deformity or patients with normal alignment. The assessment of global sagittal alignment findings can be used to predict the likelihood of improvement in sagittal alignment after THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Single-center retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:To compare the correction of fractional curve and L5 tilt in 2RVBT versus PSF with LIV in the lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Vertebral body tethering, an AIS fusion-alternative, avoids rigid constructs, allowing for lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection. Single-tether constructs break, but mini-open thoracoscopic assistant double-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) reduces this. Limited comparative studies exist with posterior spinal fusion (PSF). METHODS:Retrospective analysis of AIS correction surgeries with lumbar LIV using preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative imaging. Patients were divided into 2RVBT or PSF groups. Data included age, Riser, UIV, LIV, instrumented levels, and revision rates. Radiographic analyses included preoperative and postoperative main curve Cobb (MCC), secondary curve Cobb (SCC), fractional curve Cobb (FCC), and L5 tilt. RESULTS:Ninety-nine patients participated (49 in 2RVBT, 50 in PSF). Preoperatively, secondary CC differed significantly (2RVBT: 44.6±10.4 degrees vs. PSF: 39.5±11.8 degrees, P=0.026), but not L5 tilt, MCC, or FCC. Postoperatively, MCC (2RVBT: 25.7±12.3 degrees vs. PSF: 19.5±7.4 degrees, P=0.003) and SCC (2RVBT: 18.0±8.4 degrees vs. PSF: 14.5±6.6 degrees, P=0.012) varied. Preoperative to postoperative changes in MCC (2RVBT: -32.0±11.3 degrees vs. PSF: -37.2±13.3 degrees, P=0.044) and L5 tilt (-13.8±9.0 degrees vs. PSF: -8.1±6.8 degrees, P=0.001) differed. Revision rates were similar (2RVBT: 2.0%, PSF: 4.0%, P=0.57). In 2RVBT, 3 tethers broke, 1 revision occurred for a broken tether, and 1 pleural effusion needed thoracocentesis. In PSF, 1 superficial infection needed surgery, and 1 revision was for add-on phenomenon. After PSM for Lenke classification, 54 patients remained (27 in each group). At 2 years, 2RVBT showed less MCC correction (-30.8±11.8 degrees vs. -38.9±11.9 degrees, P=0.017), but greater L5 tilt correction (-14.6±10.0 degrees vs. -7.5±6.0 degrees, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:This study with a minimum 2-year radiographic follow-up demonstrates that 2RVBT results in greater L5 tilt correction when compared with posterior spinal fusion after PSM for Lenke classification and similar rates of revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine if iatrogenic posterior translation (UIV SPi) at the upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) is associated with increased mechanical complications and secondarily to generate and validate a UIV SPi threshold for increased complications. METHODS:Two patient databases were utilized: one for generating a UIV SPi threshold and another for validation. Patients with a UIV between T8-L1 and a LIV at ilium were included. A receiver operating curve (ROC) curve analyses was performed to generate a threshold that predicted proximal junctional complications. This UIV SPi angle (-16.0°) was rounded to -15.0° for practical clinical use and validated in a separate cohort. Patients were stratified as above (most translated, MT) or below (least translated, LT) the threshold for comparative demographic and outcomes analyses. RESULTS:Generation of the threshold on 192 patients (122 LT, 70 MT) revealed that the MT group had higher absolute postoperative UIV SVA (MT=-56.1 ± 23.1 mm vs. LT=-10.4 ± 31.8 mm, p < 0.001), higher PT (25.7° vs. 19.3°, p < 0.001), and 2.8-5.8 times greater odds of postoperative proximal junctional complications at 2-years (p < 0.05). Validation on 135 patients (95 LT, 40 MT) revealed that the MT group had 11.7 times greater odds of radiographic PJK and had 4.5 times greater odds of all-cause reoperations (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients with UIV posterior translation, despite similar PI-LL and T1PA, exhibit a high PT and experience higher odds of proximal junctional complications. Our findings support limiting the UIV SPi to < 15° of posterior translation to mitigate postoperative mechanical complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of retrospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:To determine the effects of preoperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use on estimated blood loss (EBL) and postoperative drain output in TLIF procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Current standards of care recommend patients prescribed NSAIDs for chronic lower back pain discontinue NSAIDs at least 1 week before spine fusion surgery. The literature surrounding the effects of preoperative NSAID use is unclear, however, with dissonant findings regarding postoperative blood loss and complications. METHODS:A retrospective case review was performed on 429 cases of 1-level or 2-level TLIF, with patient NSAID use recorded within 3 days of surgery, at a single institution. Linear and logistic regressions were used to assess associations between NSAID use, patient and surgical characteristics, EBL, and drain output. RESULTS:NSAID use was significantly positively associated with drain output (P=0.03), with an approximate increase of 21±9.7 mL/day but no significant association with any postoperative complications (P=0.77). Drain output also had significant, independent positive associations with patient age (P=0.007), male sex (P<0.001), and a number of levels fused (P<0.001), and significant negative associations with robot-assisted (P<0.001) and minimally invasive (P=0.04) procedures. No significant association was detected between NSAID use and EBL (P=0.21), though EBL had significant positive associations with operative time (P<0.001) and levels fused (P<0.001), and multiple NSAIDs had a significant positive association with EBL (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:NSAID use had a statistically significant, but small, effect on drain output and no detectable effect on postoperative complications within 3 days of TLIF procedures, suggesting most patients can safely continue NSAID use up until their date of surgery. Future studies should further delineate the effects of preoperative NSAID use, such that a more refined risk profile could be developed from patient and surgical characteristics and NSAID use information.

OBJECTIVE:Malalignment following cervical spine deformity (CSD) surgery can negatively impact outcomes and increase complications. Despite the growing ability to plan alignment, it remains unclear whether preoperative goals are achieved with surgery. The objective of this study was to assess how good surgeons are at achieving their preoperative goal alignment following CSD surgery. METHODS:Adult patients with CSD were prospectively enrolled into a multicenter registry. Surgeons documented alignment goals prior to surgery, including C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), C2-7 sagittal Cobb angle, T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL), and C7-S1 SVA. Goals were compared with achieved alignment, and the offsets (achieved goal) were calculated. General linear models were created for offset magnitude for each alignment parameter, controlling for baseline deformity and surgical factors. RESULTS:The 88 enrolled patients had a mean age of 63.6 ± 13.0 years. The mean number of anterior and posterior instrumented levels was 3.5 ± 1.0 and 10.6 ± 4.5, respectively. Surgeons failed to achieve their preoperative alignment goals by an average of 17.2 (range 0.1-75.4) mm for C2-7 SVA, 10.3° (range 0.1°-45.5°) for C2-7 sagittal Cobb angle, 15.6° (range 0.0°-42.9°) for TS-CL, and 34.2 (range 0.3-113.7) mm for C7-S1 SVA. The sagittal alignment parameters with the highest rate of extreme outliers were TS-CL and C7-S1 SVA, with 32.2% exceeding 20° and 60.8% exceeding 20 mm from goal alignment, respectively. After controlling for baseline deformity and operative parameters, the only factor associated with achieving targeted alignment for C2-7 sagittal Cobb angle was greater baseline thoracic kyphosis (TK; B = -0.148, 95% CI -0.288 to -0.007, p = 0.040), and for TS-CL, the only associated factor was lower baseline TS-CL (B = 0.187, 95% CI 0.027-0.347, p = 0.022). Both lower TK and greater TS-CL may reflect increased baseline deformity through greater thoracic compensation and increased TS-CL mismatch, respectively. No significant associations were identified for C2-7 SVA and C7-S1 SVA. CONCLUSIONS:Surgeons failed to achieve their preoperative alignment goals by an average of 17.2 mm for C2-7 SVA, 10.3° for C2-7 sagittal Cobb angle, 15.6° for TS-CL, and 34.2 mm for C7-S1 SVA. The few factors identified that were associated with offset between goal and achieved alignment suggest that achievement of goal alignment was most challenging for more severe deformities. Further advancements are needed to enable more consistent translation of preoperative alignment goals into the operating room for adult CSD correction. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01588054 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the impact of prior cervical constructs on upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) selection and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing thoracolumbar deformity correction. BACKGROUND:Surgical planning for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients involves consideration of spinal alignment and existing fusion constructs. METHODS:ASD patients with (ANTERIOR or POSTERIOR) and without (NONE) prior cervical fusion who underwent thoracolumbar fusion were included. Demographics, radiographic alignment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on POSTERIOR patients to identify parameters predictive of UIV choice and to evaluate postoperative outcomes impacted by UIV selection. RESULTS:Among 542 patients, with 446 NONE, 72 ANTERIOR, and 24 POSTERIOR patients, mean age was 64.4 years and 432 (80%) were female. Cervical fusion patients had worse preoperative cervical and lumbosacral deformity, and PROMs (P<0.05). In the POSTERIOR cohort, preoperative LIV was frequently below the cervicothoracic junction (54%) and uncommonly (13%) connected to the thoracolumbar UIV. Multivariate analyses revealed that higher preoperative cervical SVA (coeff=-0.22, 95%CI=-0.43--0.01, P=0.038) and C2SPi (coeff=-0.72, 95%CI=-1.36--0.07, P=0.031), and lower preoperative thoracic kyphosis (coeff=0.14, 95%CI=0.01-0.28, P=0.040) and thoracolumbar lordosis (coeff=0.22, 95%CI=0.10-0.33, P=0.001) were predictive of cranial UIV. Two-year postoperatively, cervical patients continued to have worse cervical deformity and PROMs (P<0.05) but had comparable postoperative complications. Choice of thoracolumbar UIV below or above T6, as well as the number of unfused levels between constructs, did not affect patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients who underwent thoracolumbar deformity correction, prior cervical fusion was associated with more severe spinopelvic deformity and PROMs preoperatively. The choice of thoracolumbar UIV was strongly predicted by their baseline cervical and thoracolumbar alignment. Despite their poor preoperative condition, these patients still experienced significant improvements in their thoracolumbar alignment and PROMs after surgery, irrespective of UIV selection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the variability in intraoperative fluid management during adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, and analyze the association with complications, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and length of hospital stay (LOS). METHODS:Multicenter comparative cohort study. Patients ≥ 18 years old and with ASD were included. Intraoperative intravenous (IV) fluid data were collected including: crystalloids, colloids, crystalloid/colloid ratio (C/C), total IV fluid (tIVF, ml), normalized total IV fluid (nIVF, ml/kg/h), input/output ratio (IOR), input-output difference (IOD), and normalized input-output difference (nIOD, ml/kg/h). Data from different centers were compared for variability analysis, and fluid parameters were analyzed for possible associations with the outcomes. RESULTS:Seven hundred ninety-eight patients with a median age of 65.2 were included. Among different surgical centers, tIVF, nIVF, and C/C showed significant variation (p < 0.001 for each) with differences of 4.8-fold, 3.7-fold, and 4.9-fold, respectively. Two hundred ninety-two (36.6%) patients experienced at least one in-hospital complication, and ninety-two (11.5%) were IV fluid related. Univariate analysis showed significant relations for: LOS and tIVF (ρ = 0.221, p < 0.001), IOD (ρ = 0.115, p = 0.001) and IOR (ρ = -0.138, p < 0.001); IV fluid-related complications and tIVF (p = 0.049); ICU stay and tIVF, nIVF, IOD and nIOD (p < 0.001 each); extended ICU stay and tIVF (p < 0.001), nIVF (p = 0.010) and IOD (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis controlling for confounders showed significant relations for: LOS and tIVF (p < 0.001) and nIVF (p = 0.003); ICU stay and IOR (p = 0.002), extended ICU stay and tIVF (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Significant variability and lack of standardization in intraoperative IV fluid management exists between different surgical centers. Excessive fluid administration was found to be correlated with negative outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.