Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Rod failure and pseudarthrosis are common complications following the surgical treatment of adult spinal defomity (ASD). Many strategies have been employed in mitigating these problems, such as interbody fusion, multiple rods, use of more effective biologics, and optimizing spinal alignment. We aimed to study the frequency and type of rod failures in a large ASD population over time. PURPOSE: To study the frequency and type of rod failures in a large ASD population over time. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of prospective data. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 647 adult spinal deformity patients surgically treated between 2008 and 2018. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rod failures.
METHOD(S): ASD patients with a fusion extended from minimum L1 to pelvis and min 2-year follow-up were included. Radiographs and records were examined to identify characteristics of the rod failures: timing, unilateral vs bilateral, vertebral level, unilateral progressing to bilateral failure, revision and failure rates over time.
RESULT(S): Among the study population, 647/1052 patients met inclusion criteria (age: 64+/-10 yrs., 78% F, BMI: 28.3+/-5.7, Mean follow-up: 37 months +/-13). Surgeries for these patients were performed from 2008 to 2018. The UIV was T7 or above in 306 and T8 or below in 338 patients, most frequent UIV: T4 (121) and T10 (208). A total of 146 patients had a 3COs; 435 had interbody fusion with 187 ALIF, 202 TLIF,135 XLIF; 286 patients had BMP use post only and 203 had BMP use interbody and posteriorly. Overall rod failure rate was 135/647 (21%), of which 9.3% occurred before by 2 years postop. Mean days to failure was 795 day +/- 485 (Median 733). Most frequent failures were in the lower lumbar spine L3-4 (32) 24%, L4-5 (34) 25% and L5-S1 (44) 32%. Of the 97 Unilateral failures, 35 (36.1%) were revised and only 8 progressed to bilateral failure of which 6/8 were revised; 46 Bilateral failure, 24 (52.2%) were revised.Kaplan-Meier analysis shows a survival rate of 89.7% at 2 years with decrease of 5% per year. No significant difference was found between the first 5 years and last 5 years. Comparison of primary vs revision index procedures did not reveal any differences in time to failure nor time to revision. Use of BMP improved survival rate to 91.2% compared to no BMP 83.4% at 2 years.
CONCLUSION(S): Rod failures remain a common complication when treating ASD with a rate of 21%. Among those rod failures, 9.3% occurred within 2 years. The most frequent sites of failure were in the lower lumbar spine. Unilateral failures underwent a lower rate of revision than bilateral. BMP increased rod survivability. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a survival rate of 89.7% at 2 years with a decrease of 5% per year. The failure rate has not improved when comparing the first 5 years. to last 5 years. We must continue to seek solutions to improve rod durability challenges to improve long-term outcomes. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Few studies investigate fractional curve correction after long fusion with transforaminal (TLIF) vs anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for adult symptomatic thoracolumbar/lumbar scoliosis (ASLS). PURPOSE: Our objective was to compare fractional correction, health-related quality-of-life (HRQL), and complications associated with L4-S1 TLIF vs ALIF in ASLS operative treatment. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected multicenter consecutive case registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: Database enrollment required age >=18 years, scoliosis >=20, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) >=5cm, pelvic tilt >=25, or thoracic kyphosis >=60. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic correction (including L4-S1 fractional curve), 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 was reviewed. Study inclusion required fractional curve >=10degree, thoracolumbar/lumbar curve >=30degree, index TLIF vs ALIF at L4-L5 and/or L5-S1, and minimum 2-year follow-up. TLIF and ALIF patients were propensity-matched using number and type of interbody fusion at L4-S1.
RESULT(S): Of 135 potentially eligible consecutive patients, 106 (78.5%) achieved minimum 2-year follow-up (age=60.6+/-9.3years, women=85.8%, TLIF=44.3%, ALIF=55.7%). Index operations had 12.2+/-3.6 posterior levels, iliac fixation=86.8%, and TLIF/ALIF at L4-L5 (67.0%) and L5-S1 (84.0%). ALIF had greater cage height (10.9+/-2.1 vs 14.5+/-3.0mm, p=0.001) and lordosis (6.3degree+/-1.6degree vs 17.0degree+/-9.9degree, p=0.001) and longer operative duration (6.7+/-1.5 vs 8.9+/-2.5hrs, p<0.001). Final alignment improved significantly (p<0.05): fractional curve (20.2degree+/-7.0degree to 6.9degree+/-5.2degree), maximum coronal Cobb (55.0degree+/-14.8degree to 23.9degree+/-14.3degree), C7-sagittal vertical axis (5.1+/-6.2 to 2.3+/-5.4cm), pelvic tilt (24.6degree+/-8.1degree to 22.7degree+/-9.5degree), and lumbar lordosis (32.3degree+/-18.8degree to 51.4degree+/-14.1degree). Matched analysis demonstrated comparable fractional correction (TLIF=-13.6degree+/-6.7degree vs ALIF=-13.6degree+/-8.1degree, p=0.982). Final HRQL improved significantly (p<0.05): ODI (42.4+/-16.3 to 24.2+/-19.9), SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS, 32.6+/-9.3 to 41.3+/-11.7), SRS-22r (2.9+/-0.6 to 3.7+/-0.7). Matched analysis demonstrated worse ODI (30.9+/-21.1 vs 17.9+/-17.1, p=0.017) and PCS (38.3+/-12.0 vs 45.3+/-10.1, p=0.020) for TLIF at last follow-up (despite no difference in these parameters at baseline). Total complication rate per patient was not different (TLIF=76.6% vs ALIF=71.2%, p=0.530), but significantly more TLIF patients had rod fractures (RF) (TLIF=28.6% vs ALIF=7.1%, p=0.036). Multiple regression demonstrated 1-mm increase in L4-L5 TLIF cage height lead to 2.2degree reduction in L4 coronal tilt (p=0.011), and 1degree increase in L5-S1 ALIF cage lordosis lead to 0.4degree increase in L5-S1 segmental lordosis (p=0.045).
CONCLUSION(S): Operative ASLS treatment with L4-S1 TLIF vs ALIF demonstrated comparable fractional curve correction (66.7% vs 64.8%) despite significantly larger, more lordotic ALIF cages. TLIF cage height had significant impact on leveling L4 coronal tilt, whereas ALIF cage lordosis had significant impact on lumbosacral lordosis restoration. Advantages of TLIF may include reduced operative duration; however, associated HRQL was inferior and more RFs were detected in this study. 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: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is costly and carries a high complication rate. It is therefore very important to optimize value (cost-per-QALY) or cost-utility in ASD surgery. To identify targets for improvement, we compared the influence of patient factors, measured by frailty, vs surgical factors, measured by surgical invasiveness (SI), on 2-year cost-utility. Patient frailty is an approximation of baseline patient health status, whereas SI represents extensiveness of the surgical intervention. Data comparing the relative importance of these aggregate measures on cost-utility are limited. Additionally, this analysis can serve to help identify the most impactful modifiable factors in the value equation. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess whether frailty or SI is a more important determinant of 2-year cost-utility in ASD surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective, multicenter study. PATIENT SAMPLE: ASD patients with >4-level fusion and eligible for minimum 2-year follow-up were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Two-year cost-per-QALY.
METHOD(S): Index and total episode of care (EOC; iEOC; tEOC) cost was calculated using Medicare's inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) for MS-DRGs 453-460. All costs were adjusted for inflation to 2020 US dollar values. QALYs gained were calculated using baseline, 1-year, and 2-year SF-6D scores. A discount rate of 3% was assumed. Cost-per-QALY was determined by calculating total EOC per cumulative QALY at two years. Patients were categorized as not-frail (NF, <0.3), frail (F, 0.3<= to <0.5), and severely frail (SF, >0.5). SI was categorized as low-SI (SI<90) and high-SI (SI>90). A generalized linear model with gamma error distribution and log link was used to estimate the association between frailty and SI on cost-per-QALY. All analyses were controlled for gender and blood loss. Other variables commonly adjusted for (ie, age, levels fused) were intentionally not controlled for in this analysis to avoid collinearity with either frailty or SI.
RESULT(S): DRG data for index and revision surgery was available for 505/889 patients. Mean age was 62.5+12.4years, 76% were women, and 91% were Caucasian. Of the total patients,72% demonstrated positive gain in QALY at 2 years (0.12+0.09, p<0.001) compared to baseline. The mean iEOC was $72,717, tEOC was $86,066, and cost-per-QALY was $52,357. Eighty-nine patients had 114 (range 1-5) revisions (17.6%) compared to 416 without. The tEOC in revision group was $151,913 compared to $71,978 in the non-revision group with 2-year cost-per-QALY 98,262 compared to 42,537, respectively. On adjusted analysis, F and SF patients compared to NF patients had significantly higher cost-per-QALY (p<0.0001 for all comparisons) regardless of the surgical invasiveness. However, SI was not significantly associated with cost-per-QALY regardless of patient's frailty.
CONCLUSION(S): Increasing levels of frailty were associated with significantly and incrementally higher values of 2-year cost-per-QALY in both low and high SI groups. However, within each frailty group, the high and low SI groups had equivalent cost-per-QALY. Frailty appears to be a better determinant of 2-year cost-per-QALY compared to surgical invasiveness. Surgeons should place more importance on modifiable patient factors compared to surgical factors to improve or optimize 2-year cost-utility in ASD surgery. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical alignment and cervical deformity surgery are complex topics. Recently, a score inspired by work on thoracolumbar alignment was developed for cervical alignment (cervical deformity score, CDS). While this score was designed to predict early mechanical failures, its association with patient reported outcomes (PROM) remains unclear. PURPOSE: Investigate the association between PROM, complications, and a newly described cervical deformity score. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of prospective multicenter database. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 102 adult cervical deformity (CD) patients with at least 1 year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: NDI, neck pain, EQ5D, complication rates.
Method(s): CD patients with baseline and 1-year follow-up were included. Postoperative CDS was constructed using offset from age-adjusted values: SVA [(age -55)*2+25], T1 Slope [(age -55)/4 + 28.7], and TS minus CL [cst: between 26.5 and 14.5degree]. Points were assigned based on the offset from alignment targets and the CDS was the sum of the three individual scores. Association with patient-reported outcomes was investigated using Pearson's correlations. Comparison of CDS between patients with and without complication within 1-year was conducted. Logistical regression controlling for demographic and comorbidities was conducted to identify if CDS was an independent predictor of complications.
Result(s): A total of 102 patients met inclusion criteria (61.7yo+/-10, 66.7% F); 37.6% of them had a history of previous cervical surgery (16.7% previous ACDF, 11.7% previous posterior fusion). Preoperatively, they had elevated disability (NDI: 47.1+/-18.1), pain (NSR Neck: 6.6+/-2.5), myelopathy (mJOA: 13.6+/-2.7) and lower general health (EQ5D: 0.74+/-0.07). They also presented with an overall cervical kyphotic alignment (C2-C7: -6.3degree+/-20.9), a moderate cervical anterior alignment (cSVA: 39mm+/-20; TS-CL: 37.9degree+/-19.4) and a posterior global thoracolumbar alignment (SVA: -3mm+/-68). The median of number of levels fused was 7 [4-9], with 49% treated with a posterior approach and 30.4% with a combined approach; 83.2% received an osteotomy, 44.6% some posterior osteotomy, 16.8% grade 6 or 7. The mean operative time was 368min+/-208, median EBL was 525cc [200 1025], and LOS was 5 days [4 8]. At 1 year, patients improved significantly in terms of disability (NDI: 36.2+/-20.7, 60.8% reached MCID), pain (NSR: 4.1+/-2.9) and general health (EQ5D: 0.79+/-0.08) (all p<0.001). The cervical alignment significantly changed (C2-C7: 7.8+/-14.5m; cSVA: 34mm+/-15; TS-CL: 28.9degree+/-12.6 all p <0.002), with a 1-year CDS of 1.68+/-2.46 (prctl [0 3.25]). There was a significant association between increased CDS and increased disability (r=0.273), pain (r=0.336) and lower general health (r=-0.283). Patient with a lower disability level (NDI<20) had a significantly lower CDS (0.71+/-2.3 vs 2.16+/-2.4 p<0.004). Patients without any complications before 1 year had a lower CDS (0.78+/-2.33 vs 2.18+/-2.40 p=0.005), as did patients without major complications (1.36+/-2.27 vs 2.50+/-.78 p=0.037). Deeper analysis revealed significant differences in terms of CDS for patients experiencing cardiopulmonary, instrumentation and radiographic complications (p<0.05). Multivariate analysis, controlling for age and comorbidities, show 1-year CDS to be a significant predictor of complication (p=0.002, OR=1.409).
Conclusion(s): With better outcomes and lower complication rate, maintaining a proportionate alignment postoperatively can result in superior outcomes following CD surgery. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Hounsfield unit values (HU) from computed tomography (CT) have been used to informally assess bone density in patients undergoing spine fusion procedures. HUs are easily obtained from a standard preoperative CT scan, and unlike Dual X-ray Absorptiometry analysis (DEXA) one can focus on specific regions of interest, such as the vertebral body of a planned upper-instrumented vertebrae (UIV). There is still a relative lack of literature on the reliability and utility of HUs to both identify patients with low BMD and guide surgical decision making. PURPOSE: To determine whether there was a significant difference in preoperative HUs, measured at the UIV, in patients that had a bone-density related complication (DRC) within 2 years of their spinal fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective comparative study at a single academic institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients 55 years or older that underwent a spinal fusion procedure in 2017 at a single academic institution. OUTCOME MEASURES: Occurrence of proximal junctional kyphosis, proximal junctional failure, pseudarthrosis, screw loosening or pullout, hardware failure and adjacent segment disease (ASD).
METHOD(S): Baseline preoperative demographic information, smoking history, levels fused, UIV and status as a revision procedure were recorded. All postoperative notes and images for 2 years post-procedure were reviewed for the presence of proximal junctional kyphosis, proximal junctional failure, pseudarthrosis, screw loosening or pullout, hardware failure, and ASD. HUs were measured via regions of interest drawn within the cancellous bone of the mid-vertebral body at the UIV of all patients. Patients were divided into 2 groups for comparison, those who experienced a DRC within 2 years and those who did not. Student's t-test was performed to compare HUs between the groups, chi-square analysis was performed for categorical variables. Dichotomous logistical regression was performed to analyze the relationship between density related complications and HU at the UIV, patient BMI, revision procedure, history of smoking, gender, UIV and number of levels fused. Significance was set at p<0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 172 consecutive fusion patients with a preoperative CT scan were reviewed. Of these, 49 were revision procedures. 66 had a UIV in the cervical spine, 10 had a UIV in the thoracic spine and 95 had a UIV in the lumbar spine. Ninety-nine were 1 or 2 level fusions, 49 were 3 or 4 level fusions and 23 were long fusions with 4+ levels involved. Forty-eight patients had a DRC. Baseline demographics were similar between the 2 groups, with the exception of more revision procedures in the DRC group (p<0.001). The mean HUs of the UIV in the cohort that had a DRC was 168.92, as compared to 252.66 in the no-DRC group (p<0.001). Regression analysis revealed that low HUs at the UIV and revision procedures were independent risk factors for a DRC. For every 10 unit decrease in HUs, the odds of a DRC rose by 6%. When thoracic and lumbar fusions were analyzed the mean HUs at the UIV in the DRC group were 108.5 vs 152.6 (p<0.001). When cervical fusions were analyzed separately the mean HUs in the DRC group were 308 vs 383.4 (P=0.014).
CONCLUSION(S): To our knowledge, this is the first study that compares HUs measured at the UIV to the rate of density related complications for single and multilevel fusions in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. This study found that HUs measured at the UIV of a fusion were significantly lower in patients that went on to have a density related complication within 2 years of their index procedure. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

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

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

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:The aim is to investigate the relationship between cervical parameters and the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (mJOA). Materials and Methods/UNASSIGNED:> 0.05), Pearson correlations were run for radiographic parameters and mJOA. For significant correlations, logistic regressions were performed to determine a threshold of radiographic measures for which the correlation with mJOA scores was most significant. mJOA score of 14 and <12 reported cut-off values for moderate (M) and severe (S) disability. New modifiers were compared to an existing classification using Spearman's rho and logistic regression analyses to predict outcomes up to 2 years. Results/UNASSIGNED:= 0.002). Compared to existing Ames- International Spine Study Group classification, the novel thresholds demonstrated significant predictive value for reoperation and mortality up to 2 years. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Collectively, these radiographic values can be utilized in refining existing classifications and developing collective understanding of severity and surgical targets in corrective surgery for adult CD.

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