Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Reducing fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure in the operating room is beneficial for the patient and surgical team. Placement of an interbody device during lateral transpsoas approach is traditionally carried out using anterior-posterior and lateral fluoroscopy. In this setting, 3-dimensional computed tomography (CT)-based spinal navigation of cage and pedicle screw/rod placement for LLIF procedure may result in decreased radiation exposure compared with fluoroscopically-guided LLIF. We sought to present our experience with the use of CT-based spinal navigation for the LLIF procedure and evaluate rates of intraoperative complications and radiation exposure. PURPOSE: To determine if computer-navigation guided LLIF will have equivalent outcomes with decreased radiation dose compared to fluoroscopy-guided LLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single-center retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 250 patients over 18 years of age who underwent LLIF with <4 levels fused (age: 61.4 +/- 10.8 yrs, BMI: 29.7 +/- 6.1 7 kg/m2). OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraoperative and 90-day complications, radiation exposure and cage placement.
METHOD(S): Patients were separated into two groups: fluoroscopy-guided LLIF (n=224), and navigated LLIF (n=26). Cage placement was assessed on postoperative radiographs by dividing the disc space into quarters, anterior to posterior.
RESULT(S): In terms of operative characteristics, fluoroscopy dosage was significantly greater in the fluoroscopically-guided LLIF cohort (55.1 +/- 57.4 mGy vs 34.0 +/- 24.9 mGy, p=0.002). There were no significant differences between fluoroscopically-guided LLIFs and navigated LLIFs in overall intraoperative complication rate (4% Fluoro vs 0% Nav, p=0.3), rate of durotomy (2.2 % Fluoro vs 0% Nav, p=0.44), or estimated blood loss (322 +/- 330.3 cc Flouro vs 299.5 +/- 198.6 cc Nav, p=0.6). The rate of postoperative complications (26.8% Fluoro vs 26.9% Nav), neurologic complications (5.4% Fluoro vs 3.8% Nav), surgical site infections (1.3% Fluoro vs 3.8% Nav), mechanical complications (1.8% Fluoro vs 0% Nav) was not significantly different. There was no significant difference in the rate of unplanned return to the operating room within 90 days (1.8% Fluoro vs 0% Nav). Cage placement was similar between the two groups (p=0.29).
CONCLUSION(S): We report an average radiation exposure with navigated LLIFs of 34.0 mGy, significantly lower than the 55.1 mGy in the fluoroscopically-guided LLIF group. The length of stay and perioperative complication rate was equivalent between the groups. These data support the use of CT-based navigation for placement of the cage and pedicle screws/rod construct for LLIF procedure. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patients with coronal malalignment with trunk shift toward the convexity of the main coronal curve, and oblique takeoff at the lumbosacral junction, present a unique problem for deformity correction. PURPOSE: To evaluate fractional curve and coronal malalignment correction, and rate of complications and unplanned revision in Bao Type C patients, compared to Bao Type A and B patients. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of prospectively collected singlecenter database. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 1039 ASD patients (age: 46 +/- 23 y; mFI:.4 +/-.7; levels fused: 10.0 +/- 4.2). OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes evaluated were coronal alignment and fractional curve correction, and rates of revision surgery at two-year follow-up.
METHOD(S): A total of 1039 adult spinal deformity patients (age: 46 +/- 23 y; mFI:.4 +/-.7; levels fused: 10.0 +/- 4.2), with minimum five levels fused for thoracolumbar scoliosis were divided into three groups, as proposed by Bao et al: type A: CSVL 3cm and C7 plumb shifted to scoliosis' concavity (n=126); type C: CSVL > 3cm and C7 plumb shifted to scoliosis' convexity (n=30). Outcomes evaluated were coronal alignment and fractional curve correction, and rates of revision surgery at two-year follow-up.
RESULT(S): Type C patients more often had fractional curves, and the preoperative magnitude was significantly greater (15.7degree Type C, 12.9degree Type B, 9.6degree Type A, p <0.0001). Of the Type C patients, 50% had pedicle subtraction osteotomy performed, compared with 13.4% Type B, and 13.4% Type A (p <0.0001). Postoperatively, Type C patients continued to have persistently greater fractional curves (7.4degree Type C, 6.7degree Type B, 5.6degree Type A, p=0.026), and worse coronal malalignment (37.8 mm Type C, 34.1 mm Type B, 17.0 mm type A, p<0.0001), though equivalent results with regards to improvement in sagittal alignment, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, and Cobb angle of the major curve. There rate of neurologic complications was higher in the Type C patients, specifically related to TLIF or PSO procedure performed. ALIF procedure in the Type C patients did not confer significant improvement in fractional curve correction, coronal or sagittal alignment correction, or greater lumbar lordosis, compared with TLIF procedure in these patients. There was no difference in the rate of 90-day unplanned readmission or reoperation between the groups. There was no difference in rates of rod fracture or pseudarthrosis at the interbody or PSO site in Type C patients, compared with Type A and B patients. There was no difference in rates or rod fracture, pseudarthrosis, adjacent segment disease, proximal junctional kyphosis, or reoperation for recurrent or persistent malalignment between the two groups at two-year follow-up.
CONCLUSION(S): At two-year follow-up, Type C coronal malalignment patients continue to have worse coronal deformity and fractional curve magnitude compared with Type A and B patients, with no difference, however, in long-term rod fracture, pseudarthrosis or revision surgery rates. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The ACS-NSQIP and SpineSage are both easy to use and readily available online perioperative risk calculators The ACS-NSQIP calculator predicts perioperative complications after surgery, but lacks more spine-specific predictors. The SpineSage platform was developed as a tool built for predicting complications in spine surgery. While a limited number of studies have shown it be predictive of both overall and major medical complications in spine surgery, large external validation studies are limited and none have directly compared NSQIP against SpineSage in the same cohort of spine surgery patients. PURPOSE: Assess the ACS-NSQIP Risk Calculator and SpineSage informatics platform for prediction of perioperative complications in spine surgery STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 440 patients undergoing thoracolumbar spine with or without fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: Any complication, serious complication, pneumonia, cardiac, dural tear, SSI, UTI, VTE, reoperation, death and LOS METHODS: Each patient was entered into the ACS-NSQIP and SpineSage calculators and predicted risk for specific complications were directly compared to actual risks. Paired t-tests compared the differences between calculators and their predictability of complications. Patients were ranked based on risk predicted for each complication and the highest tertile for each was isolated. Multivariate regression controlling for age and gender was used to determine if the highest tertile for each risk calculator had predictability in complications following spine surgery.
RESULT(S): Mean LOS 4.2+3 days, EBL 444+300 mL, operative time 256+240 min, and levels instrumented 2.1+2.3. When assessing the four complications predicted by SpineSage there were significant differences in three of the four variables, as SpineSage underpredicted the risk of all and serious-complications (p.5). Both calculator tertiles were trending towards significance for major medical complications (SpineSage: OR: 2.0, [0.94-4.23], p=.073; ACS-NSQIP: OR: 1.8,[0.96-3.48],p=.067). When examining any medical risk, only ACS NSQIP had significant predictability for any medical complication (OR: 2.1, [1.3-3.3]; p=.003).
CONCLUSION(S): Similar to previous studies, the ACS-NSQIP score underpredicted most complications, with the exception of LOS and death. In contrast to previous studies, our data suggest SpineSage was not predictive of actual rates of complications. As both calculators are highly accessible and provide at least some objective perioperative risk data points, we recommend them as a guiding tool but not as an absolute endpoint for clinical decision making as they may be inaccurate and insensitive. Further, higher powered studies elucidating the findings in this study should be conducted. Additionally, the assessment of these calculators for a specific subset of patients, such as deformity, degenerative or pediatrics, can further help guide clinicians regarding the utility of these calculators for their particular patient populations. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Indirect decompression technique may be limited in that it does not include direct removal of the offending intervertebral disc or osteophyte protruding into the canal. PURPOSE: This study evaluates resolution of radiculopathy and perioperative complications in lumbar fusion with indirect or direct decompression techniques. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of large single center academic institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 116 single-level lumbar fusion patients with preoperative radiculopathy from 2012 to 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Resolution of radiculopathy, visual analog scores (VAS), perioperative complications, motor scores.
METHOD(S): Patients 18 years of age diagnosed with preoperative radiculopathy undergoing single-level lumbar fusion with up to two-year follow-up were grouped by indirect and direct decompression. Direct decompression group included TLIF with or without direct decompression procedure as well as ALIF and LLIF with direct decompression procedure. Indirect decompression group included ALIF and LLIF without direct decompression procedure. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for differences in age between groups. Outcome measures were compared between groups using means comparison tests. Logistic regression analysis was used to correlate decompression type with symptom resolution over time.
RESULT(S): A total of 116 patients were included in this analysis: 58 direct decompression (mean 53.9y, 67.2% female) and 58 indirect decompression (mean 54.6y, 61.4% female). Direct decompression patients experienced greater blood loss relative to indirect decompression patients (242.4 +/- 128.5 vs 171.79 +/- 143.9 mL, p=0.007). Additionally, direct decompressionpatients experienced full resolution of radiculopathy at 3 months postop at a greater rate than those in the indirect decompression group (OR: 4.742, [1.97-11.41]; 53.1% vs 13.73%, p=0.002). At 6 months, direct decompression patients demonstrated a significantly larger reduction in VAS score 6 months postop (-2.889 +/- 2.3 vs -0.897 +/- 4.3, p=0.044). With regard to motor function, direct decompression patients had improved motor score with respect to the L5 dermatome at 6 months compared to indirect decompression patients (DELTAmotor score from baseline: 0.1714 +/- 0.453 vs -0.024 +/- 0.154, p=0.019).
CONCLUSION(S): Patients who underwent direct decompression experienced significantly greater resolution of preoperative lower extremity radiculopathy at 3 months compared with those who underwent ID alone. At 6 and 12 months, no differences were noted between the two groups. There were no differences in complication rates. At 6 months postop, direct decompression patients had greater improvement in preoperative motor deficit than ID patients. In particularly debilitated patients, these findings may influence surgeons to perform a direct decompression to achieve more rapid resolution of radiculopathy symptoms. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Previous orthopedic literature has shown that patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are more likely to develop complications in the postoperative period. To date, however, no study has assessed the specific pre- and postoperative risk factors that may contribute to this association for diabetic patients undergoing adult spinal deformity surgery. PURPOSE: Establish relevant risk factors for postoperative complications in a cohort of diabetic patients undergoing spinal deformity surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single-center retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 138 patients with DM who underwent spinal deformity surgery at a single academic hospital from 2012-2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the development of any post-operative complications. These complications included the development of neurologic complications, urinary complications, cardiac complications, pulmonary complications, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and surgical site infections (SSI).
METHOD(S): This study is a retrospective cohort review of diabetic patients undergoing spinal deformity surgery, with 5 levels fused at a single academic medical center. Patients' age, BMI, levels fused, pre- and postoperative hemoglobin (Hgb), hematocrit (HCT) and preoperative HbA1C were collected. T-test and chi-square analyses were used to compare relevant outcomes. Significance was set to p<0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 138 patients with DM met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Of these, 50.7% of the total cohort developed a postoperative complication within 90 days of the index surgery. Patients who developed postoperative complications were noted to have significantly lower postoperative Hgb (9.82+/-1.46 g/dL vs 10.72+/-1.76 g/dL, p=0.002) postoperative HCT (28.8+/-3.92% vs 32.60+/-4.61%, p<0.001) and significantly greater number of levels fused (9.49+/-3.74 vs 7.47+/-3.16, p=0.001). Diabetic patients who developed cardiac complications had significantly lower postoperative Hgb (9.47+/-1.50 g/dL vs 10.40+/-1.66 g/dL, p=0.021) and HCT (27.87+/-3.16% vs 31.15+/-4.72%, p=0.003) compared with those who did not. Diabetic patients who developed urinary complications were noted to be older on average (72.56+/-8.20 vs 64.43+/-11.70 years, p=0.043), while patients who developed VTE and pulmonary complications were noted to have significantly higher numbers of levels fused (VTE: 14.00+/-3.61 vs 8.37+/-3.51, p=0.007; PC: 10.82+/-4.14 vs 8.29+/-3.49, p=0.025)Finally, diabetic patients who developed a surgical site infection had significantly lower postoperative HCT (26.74+/-3.27% vs 30.86+/-4.64%, p=0.022) than those who did not. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that postoperative HCT (OR: 0.765 [0.613-1.098], p=0.001) and number of levels fused (OR: 1.243 [1.084-1.425], p=0.002) were predictive of development of any postoperative complication, when controlled for BMI, age, and and postoperative Hgb. Postoperative HCT was an independent predictor of the development of cardiac complications (OR: 0.827 [0.692-0.989], p=0.037) and SSI (OR: 0.709 [0.528-0.952], p=0.022).
CONCLUSION(S): Postoperative HCT is predictive of the development of postoperative complications in general, and more specifically the development of cardiac complications and surgical site infections. Along with blood-glucose and HbA1C, it should be closely monitored perioperatively in diabetic patients undergoing spinal deformity surgery. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

Orthopedic surgeons play a pivotal role in developing ways to practically and safely integrate new technology into their surgical workflow with the aim of improving safety, efficiency, and clinical outcomes. Interest in augmented reality applications to orthopedic surgery has grown significantly in the last decade due to a desire to limit complications and improve procedural efficiency. However, despite this technology remaining in its infancy, it is now emerging from proof of concept toward clinical use. This review provides a history and brief overview of the different applications of this technology in order to critically appraise its potential usefulness as its becomes more widespread.

BACKGROUND:Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery can entail complex reconstructive procedures. It is unclear whether there is any effect of case start time on outcomes. We sought to evaluate the effects of case start time and day of the week on 90-day complication, readmission, and revision rates after ASD surgery. METHODS:This is a retrospective study of 1040 ASD patients from a single institution. We collected start times and day of the week for cases from 2011 to 2018. Early start was designated as any case starting either before or at 7:30 am or between 7:30 and 11 am; late start was designated as any case starting at 11 am or later. Outcome measures include 90-day complication, revision, and readmission rates. RESULTS:= 0.046). CONCLUSIONS:A late OR start time was predictive of increased risk for neurologic complication, 90-day readmission, and unplanned reoperation. The well-established protocols for first start OR times for elective ASD surgery may decrease outcome risk and reduce variability in complication rates. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Understanding the impact of start time on outcomes and complications after ASD surgery is helpful for surgeons in preoperative planning and for institutions and hospitals' allocation of operating room staff and resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of a single-center spine database. OBJECTIVE:Investigate the intersections of chronological age and physiological age via frailty to determine the influence of surgical invasiveness on patient outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Frailty is a well-established factor in preoperative risk stratification and prediction of postoperative outcomes. The surgical profile of operative adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients who present as elderly and not frail has yet to be investigated. Our aim was to examine the surgical profile and outcomes of ASD patients who were not frail and elderly. METHODS:Included: ASD patients≥18 years old, ≥4 levels fused, with baseline(BL) and follow up data. Patients were categorized by ASD frailty index: Not Frail[NF], Frail[F], Severely Frail [SF]. An elderly patient was defined as ≥70 years. Patients were grouped into NF/elderly and F/elderly. SRS-Schwab modifiers were assessed at baseline and 1-year(0, +, ++). Logistic regression analysis assessed the relationship between increasing invasiveness, no reoperations, or major complications, and improvement in SRS-Schwab modifiers[Good Outcome]. Decision tree analysis assessed thresholds for an invasiveness risk/benefit cutoff point. RESULTS:598 ASD pts included(55.3yrs, 59.7%F, 28.3 kg/m2). 29.8% of patients were above age 70. At baseline, 51.3% of patients were NF, 37.5% F, and 11.2% SF. 66(11%) of patients were NF and elderly. 24.2% of NF-Elderly patients improved in SRS-Schwab by 1-year and had no reoperation or complication postoperatively. Binary regression analysis found a relationship between worsening SRS-Schwab, postop complication, and reoperation with invasiveness score(OR: 1.056[1.013-1.102], p = 0.011). Risk/benefit cut-off was 10(p = 0.004). Patients below this threshold were 7.9[2.2-28.4] times more likely to have a Good Outcome. 156 patients were elderly and F/SF with 16.7% having Good Outcome, with a risk/benefit cut-off point of <8 (4.4[2.2-9.0], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Frailty status impacted the balance of surgical invasiveness relative to operative risk in an inverse manner, while the opposite was seen amongst elderly patients with a frailty status less than their chronologic age. Surgeons should perhaps consider incorporation of frailty status over age status when determining realignment plans in patients of advanced age.Level of Evidence: ???

BACKGROUND:Interbody fusion at the caudal levels of long constructs for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is used to promote fusion and secure a solid foundation for maintenance of deformity correction. We sought to evaluate long-term pseudarthrosis, rod fracture, and revision rates for TLIF performed at the base of a long construct for ASD. METHODS:We reviewed 316 patients who underwent TLIF as a component of ASD surgery for medical comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and rate of unplanned reoperation for pseudarthrosis or instrumentation failure at the TLIF level. Fusion grading was assessed after revision surgery for pseudarthrosis at the TLIF level. RESULTS:Rate of pseudarthrosis at the TLIF level was 9.8% (31/316), and rate of rod fractures was 7.9% (25/316). The rate of revision surgery at the TLIF level was 8.9% (28/316), and surgery was performed at a mean of 20.4 ± 16 months from the index procedure. Current smoking status (odds ratio 3.34, P = 0.037) was predictive of pseudarthrosis at the TLIF site. At a mean follow-up of 43 ± 12 months after revision surgery, all patients had achieved bony union at the TLIF site. CONCLUSIONS:At 3-year follow-up, the rate of pseudarthrosis after TLIF performed at the base of a long fusion for ASD was 9.8%, and the rate of revision surgery to address pseudarthrosis and/or rod fracture was 8.9%. All patients were successfully treated with revision interbody fusion or posterior augmentation of the fusion mass, without need for further revision procedures at the TLIF level.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of matching Roussouly and improving in Schwab modifier following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:The Roussouly Classification system of sagittal spinal shape and the SRS-Schwab classification system have become important indicators of spine deformity. No previous studies have examined the outcomes of matching both Roussouly type and improving in Schwab modifiers postoperatively. METHODS:Surgical ASD patients with available baseline (BL) and 1 year (1Y) radiographic data were isolated in the single-center spine database. Patients were classified by their "theoretical" and "current" Roussouly types as previously published. Patients were considered a "Match" if their theoretical and current Roussouly types were the same, or a "Mismatch" if the types differed. Patients were noted as improved if they were Roussouly "Mismatch" preoperatively, and "Match" at 1Y postop. Schwab modifiers at BL were categorized as follows: no deformity (0), moderate deformity (+), and severe deformity (++) for PT, SVA, and PI-LL. Improvement in SRS-Schwab was defined as a decrease in any modifier severity at 1Y. RESULTS:103 operative ASD patients (61.8 years, 63.1% female, 30 kg/m2) were included. At baseline, breakdown of "current" Roussouly type was: 28% Type 1, 25.3% Type 2, 32.0% Type 3, 14.7% Type 4. 65.3% of patients were classified as Roussouly "Mismatch" at BL. Breakdown of BL Schwab modifier severity: PT (+: 41.7%, ++: 49.5%), SVA (+: 20.3%, ++: 50%), PI-LL (+: 25.2%, ++: 46.6%). At 1 year postop, 19.2% of patients had Roussouly "Match". Analysis of Schwab modifiers showed that 12.6% improved in SVA, 42.7% in PI-LL, and 45.6% in PT. Count of patients who both had a Roussouly type "Match" at 1Y and improved in Schwab modifier severity: nine PT (8.7%), eight PI-LL (7.8%), and two SVA (1.9%). There were two patients (1.9%) who met their Roussouly type and improved in all three Schwab. 1Y matched Roussouly patients improved more in health-related quality of life scores (minimal clinically important difference [MCID] for Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], EuroQol-5D-3L [EQ5D], Visual Analogue Score Leg/Back Pain), compared to mismatched, but was not significant (P > 0.05). Match Roussouly and improvement in PT Schwab met MCID for EQ5D more (P = 0.050). Matched Roussouly and improvement in SVA Schwab met MCID for ODI more (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients who both matched Roussouly sagittal spinal type and improved in SRS-Schwab modifiers had superior patient-reported outcomes. Utilizing both classification systems in surgical decision-making can optimize postop outcomes.Level of Evidence: 3.