Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prior literature has demonstrated that correction of sagittal plane deformity in adult patients has resulted in improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes. In the absence of sagittal plane pathology, the effects of coronal malalignment under-correction in patients with spinal deformity have not been fully investigated. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of coronal malalignment correction on HRQOL outcomes in adult spinal deformity. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a multicenter database. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 522 ASD patients had preoperative coronal malalignment greater than 40 mm. We excluded anyone who had SVA greater than 50 mm in order to control for patients without severe sagittal deformities. OUTCOME MEASURES: Our outcome measures included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), and several other SF-36 and SRS-22r health domains scores.
METHOD(S): Using a prospective, multicenter database, we identified 1560 surgical patients. Of these, 522 patients had preoperative coronal malalignment greater than 40 mm. We excluded anyone who had SVA greater than 50 mm in order to control for patients who only had coronal plane deformity. We only included patients undergoing primary surgery. We then compared 2-year post HRQOL outcomes in patients that had their coronal malalignment corrected (CVA < 40mm) vs not.
RESULT(S): Mean age of patients was 54 +/- 15 years, 91% females. 79 patients were identified with only a coronal plane deformity undergoing a primary ASD surgery. Of these, 38 (48%) were under-corrected and 41 (52%) had their coronal alignment corrected to <40mm. Compared to the corrected group, the uncorrected group had a higher ODI (26.0+/- 2.9 vs 14.7+/- 2.5; p=0.002) and lower SRS-22r Activity (3.6+/- 0.14 vs 4.2+/- 0.11; p=002), SRS-22r Appearance (3.3+/- 0.16 vs 3.9+/- 0.12, p=.001), SRS-22r total (3.6+/- 0.12 vs 4.1+/- 0.11, p=.004), SF-36 Physical Component Summary (40.8+/- 1.3 vs 46.8+/- 1.6; p=.005), SF-36 Physical Function (40.5+/- 1.7 vs 46.0+/- 1.5, p=.01), SF-36 Bodily Pain (41.7+/- 1.6 vs 47.8+/- 1.5, p=.006), SF-36 General Health (47.2+/- 1.8 vs 52.2+/- 1.4, p=.03), SF-36 Social Functioning (45.9+/- 2.1 vs 51.7+/- 1.4, p=.03), SF-36 Mental Health (48.9+/- 1.9 vs 54.2+/- 1.8, p=.048) 2 years following index surgery.
CONCLUSION(S): Patients with coronal malalignment and little sagittal plane deformity experience worse improvement in pain and disability, with under-correction of their coronal plane deformity. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Thoracolumbar malalignment is often seen in patients presenting with cervical deformities. For operative cervical deformity (CD) patients, it is unknown whether certain thoracolumbar parameters play a large role in poor outcomes (complications, distal junctional kyphosis, reoperation) and whether addressment of such parameters is warranted. PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of cervical to thoracolumbar ratios on poor outcomes in CD corrective surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: 110 CD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic parameters: regionally and globally; complications; distal junctional kyphosis (DJK); reoperations; health-related quality-of-life (HRQLs): NDI, EQ5D, mJOA.
METHOD(S): Included: surgical CD pts (C2-C7 Cobb >10degree, CL>10degree, cSVA >4cm, or CBVA >25degree) with full baseline and 1-year data. Patients were assessed for ratios of preop cervical and global parameters including: C2 slope/T1 slope, TS-CL/PI-LL, cSVA/SVA. Deformity classification ratios of cervical (Ames-ISSG) to spinopelvic (SRS-Schwab) were investigated: cSVA modifier/SVA modifier, TS-CL modifier/PI-LL modifier. Cervical to thoracic ratios included C2-C7 lordosis/T4-T12 kyphosis. Correlations assessed the relationship between ratios and poor outcome (major complication, reoperation, HRQL decline or failure to meet MCID). Decision tree analysis through multiple iterations of multivariate regressions assessed cut-offs for ratios for acquiring suboptimal outcomes.
RESULT(S): A total of 110 cervical deformity patients were included in the present analysis (61.5+/-9.9 years, 66% female, 28.8+/-7.5 kg/m2). By approach, 18.2% underwent anterior-only procedures, 46.4% posterior, and 35.4% combined. Average levels fused: 7.7+/-3.7 levels (anterior: 3.5, posterior: 8.5). The average preoperative radiographic ratios assessed included a C2 slope/T1 slope 1.56, TS-CL/PI-LL of 11.1, cSVA/SVA of 5.4, CL/TK of 0.26. Ames-ISSG and SRS-Schwab modifier ratios of cSVA/SVA 0.1 and TS-CL/PI-LL of 0.35. Pearson correlations demonstrated a significant relationship between major complications and the baseline TS-CL/PI-LL with a cutoff of >12.72 (p=0.034), >0.482 Ames TS-CL/Schwab PI-LL modifiers (p=0.019), and the CL/TK ratios (>0.814, p=0.050). Reoperation had a significant correlation with the TS-CL/PI-LL (>5.819, p=0.009) and the cSVA/SVA (>3.79, p=0.002) ratios. Postoperative DJK had a correlation with the C2 slope/T1 slope (>1.59, p=0.017) and CL/TK (>0.692, p=0.0629) ratios. Not meeting MCID for NDI correlated with the CL/TK ratio (>1.402, p=0.016) and not meeting MCID for EQ5D correlated with the Ames TS-CL/Schwab PI-LL (>0.564, p=0.010).
CONCLUSION(S): Consideration of the ratio of distal regional to global alignment is a critical determinant of outcomes in cervical deformity corrective surgery. Several key ratios of cervical to global alignment were found to correlate with the occurrence of suboptimal realignment parameters, or poor clinical outcomes. A larger cervical lordosis to thoracic kyphosis was most representative of this risk, which predicted a complication, DJK, and not meeting MCID for NDI. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Considerable debate exists regarding the optimal surgical approach for adult spinal deformity (ASD). It remains unclear which approach, posterior-only or combined anterior-posterior (AP), is more cost-effective. Our goal is to determine the 2-year cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for each approach. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To compare the 2-year cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for ASD between the posterior-only approach and combined AP approach. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective economic analysis of a prospective, multicenter database PATIENT SAMPLE: From a prospective, multicenter surgical database of ASD, patients undergoing 5 or more level fusions through a posterior-only or AP approach were identified and compared. METHODS:QALYs gained were determined using baseline, 1-year, and 2-year post-operative Short Form 6D. Cost was calculated from actual, direct hospital costs including any subsequent readmission or revision. Cost-effectiveness was determined using cost/QALY gained. RESULTS:The AP approach showed significantly higher index cost than the posterior-only approach ($84,329 vs $64,281). This margin decreased at 2-year follow-up with total costs of $89,824 and $73,904, respectively. QALYs gained at two years were similar with 0.21 and 0.17 in the posterior-only and the AP approaches, respectively. The cost/QALY at two years after surgery was significantly higher in the AP approach ($525,080) than in the posterior-only approach ($351,086). CONCLUSIONS:We assessed 2-year cost-effectiveness for the surgical treatment through posterior-only and AP approaches. The posterior-only approach is less expensive both for the index surgery and at 2-year follow-up. The QALY gained at 2-years was similar between the two approaches. Thus, posterior-only approach was more cost-effective than the AP approach under our study parameters. However, both approaches were not cost-effective at 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) provides indirect decompression of the neural elements while minimizing the potential vascular complications associated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Posterior fixation may be applied through various techniques such as conventional minimally invasive surgery (CMIS), requiring the patient to be repositioned prone to provide access to both pedicles. Conversely, robot-assisted navigation (RAN) of pedicle screws can be utilized from a single position without flipping the patient. RAN is theorized to reduce patient surgical time, radiation, and blood loss due to positioning and workflow effects. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of robot-assisted navigation in comparison to CMIS methods in terms of surgical time, radiation exposure, and pedicle screw accuracy. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cadaveric study. PATIENT SAMPLE: N/A OUTCOME MEASURES: N/A METHODS: Twelve unembalmed human torsos were implanted with 2-level static LLIF cages, followed by posterior bilateral pedicle screw fixation using either CMIS (n=6) or RAN (n=6). Preoperative computed tomography (CT) RAN workflow utilized CT scans of the specimen taken offsite and transferred to the robotic system during setup. Screw planning was performed using these CT scans, and then was merged with intraoperative fluoroscopy. Surgical times, surgeon radiation exposure, and screw accuracy were measured. Patient flip time from a consecutive patient series was included.
RESULT(S): Significant differences in surgical times and radiation dosages were found between groups. Surgical time for preoperative RAN and CMIS was 64.7 min+/-4.1 min and 123.0 min+/-13.7 min, respectively. Time per screw for RAN and CMIS workflows was 2.7+/-0.6 min and 4.3+/-1.3 min, respectively. RAN was significantly different for total operative time and time per screw in comparison to CMIS (p<0.05). Radiation dosages and times were separated into interbody and posterior fixation procedures separately, and sorted by imaging workflow. RAN and CMIS radiation dosages during posterior fixation were 0.4+/-0.2 rad and 2.7+/-1.6, respectively (p<0.05). Screw accuracy was as follows: CMIS resulted in 4 breaches (11% breach rate), while RAN resulted in a single breach (3% breach rate).
CONCLUSION(S): Significant differences were found in both surgical time and radiation exposure between CMIS and RAN, with RAN resulting in shorter surgical times and less radiation exposure to the surgeon than CMIS. Consideration should be given to single-position LLIF procedures that utilize RAN to instrument the spine with bilateral pedicle screws. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although researchers have extensively studied factors predicting clinical outcomes at static time points, assessing rate of recovery after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery has largely been ignored. This study aims to address this gap in knowledge by evaluating the impact of frailty and invasiveness on recovery kinetics, using area-under-the-curve (AUC) methodology. PURPOSE: To assess the impact of patient specific and surgical factors on postoperative recovery kinetics. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter database. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 320 patients were identified from a multicenter database who had minimum 2-year HRQOL follow-up, with preoperative, 6-week and 1-year data available. OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome measure was integrated health state (IHS) score, a marker of postoperative recovery.
METHOD(S): ASD patients with minimum 2-year follow-up were stratified by frailty and surgical invasiveness. Previously validated ASD-FI scores were used to separate non-frail (<.3) patients from those that there were frail (.3 to.5) and severely frail (>.5). Patients were also stratified by surgical inverness, using ASD-SR, into four quartiles, Q1: <65, Q2: 66-89, Q3: 90-119, Q4: >120. Patient demographics, BMI, CCI and surgical parameters were also collected. To assess recovery kinetics, SRS-22r and ODI scores at 6-weeks, 1-year and 2-year were normalized against preoperative values and graphed as a function of time. AUC was summed across all time points to generate a single IHS score. Multivariate linear regression was used with IHS scores as primary outcome variable.
RESULT(S): A total of 320 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mean (SD) patient age was 58.6 (14.7) with 79% female. Overall, 139 were non-frail, 131 frail and 46 severely frail. On univariate analysis, frail and severely frail patients were noted to have worse baseline and 2-year HRQOL scores for SRS pain, activity and ODI; however, when comparing differences in HRQOL across this 2-year period, F and SF were noted to have greater improvements in both SRS and ODI (p<.05). On multivariate regression, frail and severely frail patients, compared to those non-frail, were found to have better IHS scores for ODI, SRS-22r pain, and SRS-22r activity, indicating more favorable recovery (p<.05). In particular, for SRS-22r activity, frail (adjusted beta: 0.37, p=<.01) and severely frail (adjusted beta: 0.74, p=<.01) patients were found to have higher IHS compared to their non-frail counterparts. Similarly, for SRS-22r pain, frail and severely frail patients showed improved recovery with higher IHS scores in comparison to non-frail patients. In contrast to frailty, operative variables, including surgical invasiveness and EBL, were insignificant predictors of IHS scores for either ODI or SRS-22r domains.
CONCLUSION(S): Our results suggest that patient-specific factors, namely frailty, play a larger role in predicting postoperative recovery kinetics, in comparison to surgical factors, which appear to have limited if any impact. Despite frail patients having lower preoperative and 2-year HRQOL scores, they were noted to have higher IHS scores SRS pain, activity, and ODI indicating more favorable recovery. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Analysis of interactions of spinal alignment metrics may uncover novel alignment parameters, similar to PI-LL. This study utilized a data-driven approach to hypothesis generation by testing all possible division interactions between spinal alignment parameters. METHODS:This study was a retrospective cohort analysis. In total, 1439 patients with baseline ODI were included for hypothesis generation. In total, 666 patients had 2-year postoperative follow-up and were included for validation. All possible combinations of division interactions between baseline metrics were assessed with linear regression against baseline ODI. RESULTS:From 247 raw alignment metrics, 32,398 division interactions were considered in hypothesis generation. Conceptually, the TPA divided by PI is a measure of the relative alignment of the line connecting T1 to the femoral head and the line perpendicular to the sacral endplate. The mean TPA/PI was 0.41 at baseline and 0.30 at 2 years postoperatively. Higher TPA/PI was associated with worse baseline ODI (p < 0.0001). The change in ODI at 2 years was linearly associated with the change in TPA/PI (p = 0.0172). The optimal statistical grouping of TPA/PI was low/normal (≤ 0.2), medium (0.2-0.4), and high (> 0.4). The R-squared for ODI against categorical TPA/PI alone (0.154) was directionally higher than that for each of the individual Schwab modifiers (SVA: 0.138, PI-LL 0.111, PT 0.057). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study utilized a data-driven approach for hypothesis generation and identified the spino-pelvic ratio (TPA divided by PI) as a promising measure of sagittal spinal alignment among ASD patients. Patients with SPR > 0.2 exhibited inferior ODI scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Coronal malalignment (CM) causes pain, impairment of function and cosmetic problems for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients in addition to sagittal malalignment. Certain types of CM are at risk of insufficient re-alignment after correction. However, CM has received minimal attention in the literature compared to sagittal malalignment. The purpose was to establish reliability for our recently published classification system of CM in ASD among spine surgeons. METHODS:Fifteen readers were assigned 28 cases for classification, who represented CM with reference to their full-length standing anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. The assignment was repeated 2 weeks later, then a third assignment was done with reference to additional side bending radiographs (SBRs). Intra-, inter-rater reliability and contribution of SBRs were determined. RESULTS:Intra-rater reliability was calculated as 0.95, 0.86 and 0.73 for main curve types, subtypes with first modifier, and subtypes with two modifiers respectively. Inter-rater reliability averaged 0.91, 0.75 and 0.52. No differences in intra-rater reliability were shown between the four expert elaborators of the classification and other readers. SBRs helped to increase the concordance rate of second modifiers or changed to appropriate grading in cases graded type A in first modifier. CONCLUSIONS:Adequate intra- and inter-rater reliability was shown in the Obeid-CM classification with reference to full spine anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. While side bending radiographs did not improve the classification reliability, they contributed to a better understanding in certain cases. Surgeons should consider both the sagittal and coronal planes, and this system may allow better surgical decision making for CM.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: While advances have been made in the surgical management of distal junctional kyphosis (DJK), complication rates remain high. Although individual factors related to its occurrence have been cited, many of these cases are mild and have no clinical relevance nor have these been combined into a formal predictive model, particularly for cases that are clinically impactful. PURPOSE: Develop a formal predictive model distinguishing between symptomatic and asymptomatic DJK. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 99 cervical deformity patients (CD) with 1 year (1Y) follow up OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications; reoperations; HRQL, alignment METHODS: CD patients (pts) were stratified into asymptomatic (Asym) and symptomatic (Sym) DJK. DJK angle (DJKA) was defined >10degree change in kyphosis between LIV and LIV-2 and a >10degree index angle. Asym: DJK to be>10degree in the absence neurologic sequelae. Sym: 1) DJKA> 10degree and either reop due to DJK or >one new-onset neurological sequelae related to DJK or 2) pts who had either a DJKA > 20degree or DJKA > 20degree. Stepwise logistic regressions were used to identify patient-specific, surgical, radiographic and HRQL factors that were associated with these types of DJK. Decision tree analysis established cut-offs for the continuous variables.
RESULT(S): A total of 99 CD pts were included (60yrs, 26.5kg/m2, 66.7%F). Surgical characteristics: 7.4+/-4 levels fused, 47.5% posterior, 18.2% anterior, and 34.3% combined. Overall, 32.2% developed DJK (34.3% Asym, 65.7% Sym). 37.5% of Asym pts received a reop vs 62.5% Sym pts. At BL, Asym pts had a greater BMI (28.5 vs 23kg/m2) and NSR back pain (5.2 vs 4.6; all p<0.05). Decision tree analysis identified osteoporosis, UIV level, and the apex of the region of the spine where the primary deformity is located to predict Sym pts. Top factors predicting Sym pts over Asym were BL EQ5D>0.65, UIV cephalad to C2, and C2-C7 apex caudal to C5. Multivariate analysis identified independent radiographic and surgical factors for developing Sym DJK: [Radiographic] BL PI (1.02[0.9-1.07]), preop cervical flexibility (1.04[1.01-1.07]); [Surgical] combined approach (6.2[1.4-27]; all p<0.05). Having abnormal hyper kyphosis in the thoracic spine, more so than abnormal cervical lordosis, was an independent factor for developing Sym when analyzed against Asym pts (1.2[0.01-115]). Predictive modeling identified factors that were predictive of Sym against no DJK pts such as having myelopathy (mJOA score:12-14), combined approach, UIV=C3 or C4, preoperative hypermobility, and >7 levels fused (AUC: 0.89). A predictive model for Sym versus Asym pts yielded an AUC of 85% and included being frail, having a TS-CL>20, and a PI>46.3. Controlling for BL deformity and disability, Sym pts had greater cSVA(4-8cm: 47.6%vs 27%) and were more maligned according to their SRS-SVA (0.1[0.76-0.02]) than non DJK pts at 1Y (all p<0.05). Despite their symptomatology and higher re-operation rate, outcomes equilibrated in the Sym cohort at 1Y following revision.
CONCLUSION(S): Overall 32.2% cervical deformed patients suffered from DJK most of which were clinically significant. Severe symptomatic DJK can be predicted with high reliability using combined determinants of baseline spinal cord dysfunction, mobility, frailty, and surgical factors including end levels, number of levels fused and use of a combined approach. It can be further distinguished from asymptomatic occurrences by taking into account pelvic incidence and baseline cervicothoracic deformity severity. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: This study evaluates the necessity of a multi-rod construct to help prevent a pseudarthrosis in ASD surgery of lesser magnitude. Regardless of an interbody at L5/S1, a multi-rod construct does not decrease the risk of developing a pseudarthrosis. If a pseudarthrosis develops in patients who undergo an interbody fusion at L5/S1, it is more likely to occur above the L5/S1 level and the number of rods used does not decrease this risk. PURPOSE: To examine the necessity of IBF and multi-rod use to prevent pseudarthrosis in these lesser magnitude ASD surgeries. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a multicenter database. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 483 patients met our inclusion criteria of pelvic fixation, > 2 year follow up, >5 levels fused, no 3-column osteotomy (3CO), and no multi-level interbody fusions. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pseudarthrosis rate and location in ASD patients.
METHOD(S): A multi-center database was evaluated to identify patients with pelvic fixation, > 2 year follow up, >5 levels fused, and no 3-column osteotomy (3CO). We define a lesser magnitude ASD surgery as surgeries that do not include 3CO or multi-level interbody fusions. In this cohort, ASD patients with and without an IBF at L5/S1 were assessed to evaluate if the number of rods had an impact on the pseudarthrosis rate. Pseudarthrosis was determined by intraoperative findings or record review. Fisher's exact tests, univariate and multivariate analysis were used to identify predictors of pseudo.
RESULT(S): A total of 483 patients met our inclusion criteria with an average follow-up of 48 months. Of those, 321 (66%) had interbody at L5/S1 (IBF). Twenty-three percent of IBF patients had a MR construct and 77% had a SR construct. In the non-IBF group, 33% had a MR construct. In the IBF group, the MR construct did not impact the pseudarthrosis rate compared to a SR construct, (6.8% vs 5.2% respectively, p=.35). In the IBF group, 29% (4) of MR patients and 75% (6) of SR patients with pseudo received BMP. However, regardless of the rod construct, ASD patients with an interbody at L5/S1 had an increased risk of having a pseudarthrosis above this level (OR.096, p=.045). Also, the MR construct did not decrease the risk of developing a pseudarthrosis in the non-IBF group (0% vs 4.5%, p=.18).
CONCLUSION(S): In ASD surgery of lesser magnitude, a multi-rod construct does not decrease the risk of developing a pseudarthrosis. Patients who have an interbody fusion at L5/S1 are more likely to develop a pseudarthrosis above this level, regardless of the rod construct. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright