Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery is often associated with high rates of adverse outcomes during the recovery course. With the growth of predictive analytics in the medical field, it is important to utilize the developing machine-learning resources to consider the risks associated with major operations. PURPOSE: To assess the validity of the ACS-NSQIP risk index for postop complications and mortality in a prospective multicenter ASD database. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of a prospective multicenter ASD database PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 1,281 ASD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Predictive performance of the ACS-NSQIP calculator in an ASD database.
METHOD(S): Patients>18yrs undergoing surgery for ASD (scoliosis>=20degree, SVA>=5cm, PT>=25degree or TK>=60degree). Calculated perioperative complication risk averages via the ACS-NSQIP surgical calculator with CPT codes were compared with 30-day complication rates in the ASD database. Outcomes assessed (as defined by NSQIP): serious complication, any complication, pneumonia, cardiac complication, SSI, UTI, VTE, renal failure, return to OR, death, sepsis and length of hospital stay. Predictive performance of the calculator was analyzed by Brier score (sum of squared differences between the binary outcome and the predicted risk). It ranges from 0 to a maximum Brier score [(mean observed outcome)*(1-[mean observed outcome])]. Values closer to 0 are suggestive of better predictive performance (>0.05 considered poor). Length of stay was assessed with a Bland-Altman plot, observed LOS on the x-axis and the difference between the observed and predicted LOS on the y-axis. Performance of the calculator for serious/any complications for surgeries indicated as 'Risk significantly higher than estimate' was assessed by comparing means of patients who were in the top quartile for their ISSG-invasiveness scores.
RESULT(S): A total of 1,281 ASD patients (60.2 yrs, 73.5% F, 28 kg/m2) were included. A total of 49.4% of procedures involved decompression and 100% involved fusion, with a mean number of levels fused of 10.98. The means for individual patient characteristics that coincide with the variables entered into the online risk calculator interface are as follows: functional status through baseline ODI scores (Independent [0-40]: 35.6%, Partially Dependent [41-80]: 61.8%, Totally Dependent [81+]: 2.6%), 0% emergent cases, ASA Class (I: 5.6%, II: 46.8%, III: 41.7%, IV: 1.4%, V: 0%), 11.9% disseminated cancer, 9.1% diabetes mellitus, 36.5% use of hypertensive medications, 10.8% CHF, 5.9% current smoker, 5.2% COPD, and 4.4% acute renal failure. Predictive of any 30-day postoperative complications ranged from 2.8-18.5% across CPT codes, where the actual rate in the cohort was 9.0%, and demonstrated good predictive performance via Brier Score (0.00064516, Max: 0.00819), as well as pneumonia, SSI, UTI, VTE, renal failure, death and sepsis (Brier Max: 0-0.01458096). Serious and cardiac complications, as well as return to OR were poorly predicted via the NSQIP risk index (Brier Max > 0.05). Mean difference between observed and predicted LOS was 4.276 days with a 95% confidence interval of 9.484 - -0.932. When indicated for significantly high risk, the calculator poorly predicted overall and serious complications (Brier Max >0.1).
CONCLUSION(S): While the ACS-NSQIP risk index had acceptable predictive performance in regards to the occurrence of overall post-operative complications, notable exceptions were detected. Specifically, deficiencies in assessing serious complications, cardiac complication and return to OR were seen, and performance was noted to diminish with procedures of greater invasiveness. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Hospital acquired conditions (HACs) were established in the Affordable Care Act, and are defined as reasonably preventable complications that are nonreimbursable. In high risk patient populations for HACs, such as frail surgical spine patients, preoperative evaluation should consider modifiable factors. PURPOSE: To identify if optimizing the modifiable factors in the frailty index reduce the risk of developing HACs in population of surgical spine patients. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 196,523 elective spine surgery patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). OUTCOME MEASURES: Modifiable patient frailty factors: hypertension and diabetes mellitus; rates of HACs, superficial or deep surgical site infection (SSI), deep venous thromboembolism (VTE) and urinary tract infection (UTI), across frailty scores.
METHOD(S): Patients >18 years who underwent elective spine surgery were identified in ACS-NSQIP database from 2005-2016. HACs identified: SSI, VTE, and UTI. Patient frailty was assessed utilizing the modified NSQIP 5-factor frailty index. The modified frailty score (mFI-5) is assessed on a scale between 0 and 1 (no frailty [NF] <0.3, mild frailty [MF] 0.3-0.5, severe frailty [SF] >0.5). Descriptive analysis quantified rates of patient characteristics, operative details, and HAC prevalence. Stepwise linear regression models determined significant predictors of baseline frailty using controllable patient factors. HACs were compared between 'optimized' and 'non-optimized' frailty status in the cohort. Level of significance was set to P<0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 196,523 patients (57+/-14.2 years, 30.4 kg/m², 48%F) met inclusion criteria. Overall, 5,720 (2.9%) of patients developed an HAC, the most common was an SSI (1.3%), followed by UTI (1.1%). When stratified by the mFI-5 frailty severity groups at baseline, 83.6% of patients were categorized NF, 15.1% MF and 1.3% SF. Within the frailty severity groups, prevalence of overall HACs increased significantly (NF: 2.64%, MF: 4.17%, 5.93%, p<0.001). Rates of all individual postoperative HACs assessed also increased with greater baseline frailty severity: SSI (NF: 1.14%, MF: 1.93%, SF: 2.39%, p<0.001), UTI (NF: 0.91%, MF: 1.66%, SF: 2.85%, p<0.001), VTE (NF: 0.68%, MF: 0.80%, SF: 1.16%, p=0.002). Stepwise linear regression models determined that diabetes mellitus (beta = 0.493) and hypertension (beta = 0.679) were the most significant predictors for increased baseline frailty by way of the mFI-5 NSQIP index (Final model: R2= 0.897). Of total patients, 47.2% had the optimal modifiable frailty factors (no history of diabetes or hypertension). The optimal frailty patients had significantly less overall incidence of SSI (2.03% vs 2.5%, p<0.001), UTI (0.65% vs 1.4%, p<0.001), DVT (0.56% vs 0.84%, p<0.001), and any overall HAC (2.18% vs 3.56%, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION(S): Stepwise linear regression models determined that hypertension and diabetes account for 89.7% of variance in baseline mFI-5 score. Patients with these optimal controllable factors had reduced incidence of all hospital acquired conditions. In order to optimize hospital resources and treatment outcomes, physicians and patients should be aware of the modifiable factors that contribute to a patient's frailty that can ultimately impact acquiring HACs. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

Background/UNASSIGNED:Changes in spinopelvic and lower extremity alignment between standing and relaxed sitting have important clinical implications with regard to stability of total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to analyze the effect of body mass index (BMI) on lumbopelvic alignment and motion at the hip joint. Methods/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review of patients who underwent full-body stereoradiographs in standing and relaxed sitting for total hip arthroplasty planning was conducted. Spinopelvic parameters measured included spinopelvic tilt (SPT), pelvic incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis (LL), PI minus LL (PI-LL), proximal femoral shaft angle (PFSA), and standing-to-sitting hip range of motion. Propensity score matching controlled for age, gender, PI, and hip ostoarthritis grade. Patients were stratified into normal (NORMAL; BMI, 18.5-24.9), overweight (OW; 25.0-29.9), and obese (OB; 30.0-34.9) groups. Alignment parameters were compared using one-way analysis of variance. Results/UNASSIGNED:< .001). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Significant differences in sitting and standing-to-sitting change in lumbopelvic alignment based on BMI suggest obese patients recruit more posterior spinopelvic tilt when sitting to compensate for soft-tissue impingement that occurs anterior to the hip joint and limiting hip flexion.

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: Revision surgery is often necessary for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. Satisfaction with management is an important component of HRQOL. PURPOSE: We hypothesized that patients who underwent multiple revision surgeries following adult spinal deformity correction would exhibit lower satisfaction scores. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of a prospectively collected multicenter database of ASD patients. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 668 patients undergoing ASD surgery and eligible for minimum 2-year follow-up were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: SRS-22r satisfaction score.
METHOD(S): Visits were stratified by occurrence prior to the index surgery (period 0), after the index surgery only (period 1) (ie, never underwent revision or had not yet undergone revision), after first revision only (period 2), and after second revision only (period 3). Patients were further stratified by prior spine surgery before their index surgery. SRS-22r satisfaction scores were evaluated at all periods using multiple linear regression adjusting for age, gender, and CCI.
RESULT(S): In total, 46.6% had prior spine surgery before their index surgery. The overall revision rate was 21.3%. among patients with no spine surgery prior to the index surgery, satisfaction increased from period 0 to 1 (2.8 to 4.3, p<0.0001), decreased after one revision from period 1 to 2 (4.3 to 3.9, p=0.0004), and decreased after a second revision from period 2 to 3 (3.9 to 3.3, p=0.0437). Among patients with spine surgery prior to the index procedure, satisfaction increased from period 0 to 1 (2.8 to 4.2, p<0.0001), and decreased from period 1 to 2 (4.2 to 3.8, p=0.0011). No differences in follow-up time from last surgery were observed between visits in periods 1, 2, and 3 (all p>0.3). among patients with multiple revisions, 40% experienced rod fracture, 40% PJK, and 33% pseudarthrosis.
CONCLUSION(S): ASD patients exhibit decreased satisfaction with subsequent revision. Among patients undergoing primary surgery in our database, this effect is additive for multiple revisions. These results have important implications for surgeons, patients, insurers, hospital administrators, and policymakers. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Patients with severe cervical deformity (CD) often have profound deficits in numerous activities of daily living. The association between health status and post-operative radiographic goals is difficult to quantify. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We aimed to investigate the radiographic characteristics of patients who achieved optimal health related quality of life scores following surgery for CD. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of patients with spinal deformity. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:One hundred and fifty-three patients with cervical deformity OUTCOME MEASURES: Common health-related quality of life scores (HRQOLs) measurements were taken for patients treated operatively for cervical deformity including neck disability index (NDI), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (mJOA) for myelopathy and numeric rating scale for neck pain (NRS-neck), METHODS: Surgical patients with severe (can you define severe?) CD were isolated based upon a previously presented discriminant analysis which outlined a combination of preoperative cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), T1 slope, maximum focal kyphosis in extension, C2 slope in extension, and number of kyphotic levels in extension. Those with available preoperative and 1-year postoperative HRQL data were included. Based on a previous study, patients were grouped into 3 distinct sagittal morphotypes of CD: focal deformity (FD), flatneck (FN=large TS-CL and lack of compensation), or cervicothoracic (CT). Post-operative outcomes were defined as "good" if a patient had ≥2 of the 3 following criteria (1) NDI <20 or meeting MCID, (2) mild myelopathy (mJOA≥14), and (3) NRS-Neck ≤5 or improved by ≥2 points from baseline. Within each distinct deformity group, patients with good outcomes were compared to those with poor outcomes (i.e. not meeting the criteria for good) for differences in demographics, HRQL scores, and alignment, via Chi-squared or student's t-tests. RESULTS:Overall, 83 of 153 patients met the criteria of severe CD and 40 patients had complete 1-year follow-up of clinical/radiographic data. Patient breakdown by deformity pattern was: CT (N=13), FN (N=17), and FD (N=17), with 7 patients meeting criteria for both FD and FN deformities. Within the FD cohort, maximal focal kyphosis (i.e. kyphosis at one level) was better corrected in patients with a "good" outcome (p = 0.03). In the FN cohort, patients with "good" outcomes presented pre-operatively with worse horizontal gaze (McGregor Slope 21° vs 6°, p=0.061) and cSVA (72mm vs 60mm, p=0.030). "Good" outcome FN patients showed significantly greater postop correction of horizontal gaze (-25° vs -5°, p = 0.031). In the CT cohort, patients with "good" outcomes had superior global alignment both pre- (SVA: -17mm vs 108mm, p <0.001) and post-operatively (50mm vs 145mm, p=0.001). CT patients with "good" outcomes also had better postop cervical alignment (cSVA 35mm vs 49mm, p=0.030), and less kyphotic segments during extension (p=0.011). In the FD cohort, there were no differences between "good" and "poor" outcomes patients in preoperative alignment; however, "good" outcome patients showed superior changes in postoperative focal kyphosis (-2° vs 5°, p=0.030). Within all three deformity pattern categories, there were no differences between "good" and "poor" outcome patients with respect to demographics or surgical parameters (levels fused, surgical approach, decompression, osteotomy, all p>0.050). CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study show each CD patient's unique deformity must be carefully examined in order to determine the appropriate alignment goals to achieve optimal HRQOLs. In particular, the recognition of the sagittal morphotype can help assist surgeons to aim for specific alignment goals for CT, FN and FD. Distinct deformity specific intra-operative goals include obtaining proper sagittal global/cervical alignment for cervicothoracic patients, correcting maximal focal kyphosis in focal deformity patients, and correcting horizontal gaze for flatneck patients.

BACKGROUND:As of May 4, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected >3.5 million people and touched every inhabited continent. Accordingly, it has stressed health systems worldwide, leading to the cancellation of elective surgical cases and discussions regarding health care resource rationing. It is expected that rationing of surgical resources will continue even after the pandemic peak and may recur with future pandemics, creating a need for a means of triaging patients for emergent and elective spine surgery. METHODS:Using a modified Delphi technique, a cohort of 16 fellowship-trained spine surgeons from 10 academic medical centers constructed a scoring system for the triage and prioritization of emergent and elective spine surgeries. Three separate rounds of videoconferencing and written correspondence were used to reach a final scoring system. Sixteen test cases were used to optimize the scoring system so that it could categorize cases as requiring emergent, urgent, high-priority elective, or low-priority elective scheduling. RESULTS:The devised scoring system included 8 independent components: neurologic status, underlying spine stability, presentation of a high-risk postoperative complication, patient medical comorbidities, expected hospital course, expected discharge disposition, facility resource limitations, and local disease burden. The resultant calculator was deployed as a freely available Web-based calculator (https://jhuspine3.shinyapps.io/SpineUrgencyCalculator/). CONCLUSIONS:We present the first quantitative urgency scoring system for the triage and prioritizing of spine surgery cases in resource-limited settings. We believe that our scoring system, although not all encompassing, has potential value as a guide for triaging spine surgical cases during the COVID pandemic and post-COVID period.

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study of prospective patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar fusion at a single academic institution. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To assess differences in perioperative outcomes between primary and revision MIS (minimally invasive surgical) lumbar interbody fusion patients and compare with those undergoing corresponding open procedures. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients ≥18 years old undergoing lumbar interbody fusion were grouped by surgical technique: MIS or open. Patients within each group were propensity score matched for comorbidities and levels fused. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and perioperative complication incidences were compared between primary and revision cases using means comparison tests, as appropriate. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< .05). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Clinical outcomes of revision MIS lumbar interbody fusion were similar to those of primary surgery. Additionally, MIS techniques were associated with less EBL, shorter LOS, and fewer perioperative complications than corresponding open revisions.

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Single-center retrospective review. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:The cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) is typically difficult to visualize using traditional radiographs. Whole-body stereoradiography (EOS) allows for imaging of the entire axial skeleton in a weightbearing position without parallax error and with lower radiation doses. In this study we sought to compare the visibility of the vertebra of the CTJ on lateral EOS images to that of conventional cervical lateral radiographs. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Two fellowship-trained spine surgeons evaluated the images of 50 patients who had both lateral cervical radiographs and EOS images acquired within a 12-month period. The number of visible cortices of the vertebral bodies of C6-T2 were scored 0-4. Patient body mass index and the presence of spondylolisthesis >2 mm at each level was recorded. The incidence of insufficient visibility to detect spondylolisthesis at each level was also calculated for both modalities. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:On average, there were more visible cortices with EOS versus XR at T1 and T2, whereas visible cortices were equal at C6 and C7. Patient body mass index was inversely correlated with cortical visibility on XR at T2 and on EOS at T1 and T2. There was a significant difference in the incidence of insufficient visibility to detect spondylolisthesis on EOS versus XR at C7-T1 and T1-2, but not at C6-7. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:EOS imaging is superior at imaging the vertebra of the CTJ. EOS imaging deserves further consideration as a diagnostic tool in the evaluation of patients with cervical deformity given its ability to produce high-quality images of the CTJ with less radiation exposure.

OBJECT/OBJECTIVE:This case series examined patients undergoing caudal extension of prior fusion without alteration of the prior UIV to assess patient outcomes and rates of PJK/PJF. METHODS:Patients eligible for 2-year minimum follow-up undergoing caudal extension of prior fusion with unchanged UIVs were identified. These patients were evaluated for PJK/PJF, and patient reported outcomes were recorded. RESULTS:In total, 40 patients were included. Mean follow-up duration was 2.2 years (SD 0.3). Patients in this cohort had poor preoperative sagittal alignment (PI-LL 26.7°, TPA 29.0°, SVA 93.4mm) and achieved substantial sagittal correction (ΔSVA -62.2mm, ΔPI-LL -19.8°, ΔTPA -11.1°) following caudal extension surgery. At final follow-up, there was a 0% rate of PJF among patients undergoing caudal extension of previous fusion without creation of a new UIV, but 27.5% of patients experienced PJK. Patients experienced significant improvement in both ODI and SRS-22r total score at 2-years post-operatively (p<0.05). In total, 7.5% (n=3) of patients underwent further revision, at an average of 1.1 years (SD 0.54) after the surgery with unaltered UIV. All three of these patients underwent revision for rod fracture with no revisions for PJK/PJF. CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing caudal extension of previous fusions for sagittal alignment correction have high rates of clinical success, low revision surgery rates, and very low rates of PJF. Minimizing repetitive tissue trauma at the UIV may result in decreased PJF risk, as the PJF rate in this cohort of unaltered UIV patients is below historical PJF rates of patients undergoing sagittal balance correction.