Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Our understanding of the relationship between sagittal alignment and mechanical complications is evolving. In normal spines, the L1-pelvic angle (L1PA) accounts for the magnitude and distribution of lordosis and is strongly associated with pelvic incidence (PI), and the T4-pelvic angle (T4PA) is within 4° of the L1PA. We aimed to examine the clinical implications of realignment to a normal L1PA and T4-L1PA mismatch. METHODS:A prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity registry was queried for patients who underwent fixation from the T1-T5 region to the sacrum and had 2-year radiographic follow-up. Normal sagittal alignment was defined as previously described for normal spines: L1PA = PI × 0.5 - 21°, and T4-L1PA mismatch = 0°. Mechanical failure was defined as severe proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), displaced rod fracture, or reoperation for junctional failure, pseudarthrosis, or rod fracture within 2 years. Multivariable nonlinear logistic regression was used to define target ranges for L1PA and T4-L1PA mismatch that minimized the risk of mechanical failure. The relationship between changes in T4PA and changes in global sagittal alignment according to the C2-pelvic angle (C2PA) was determined using linear regression. Lastly, multivariable regression was used to assess associations between initial postoperative C2PA and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year, adjusting for preoperative scores and age. RESULTS:The median age of the 247 included patients was 64 years (interquartile range, 57 to 69 years), and 202 (82%) were female. Deviation from a normal L1PA or T4-L1PA mismatch in either direction was associated with a significantly higher risk of mechanical failure, independent of age. Risk was minimized with an L1PA of PI × 0.5 - (19° ± 2°) and T4-L1PA mismatch between -3° and +1°. Changes in T4PA and in C2PA at the time of final follow-up were strongly associated (r2 = 0.96). Higher postoperative C2PA was independently associated with more disability, more pain, and worse self-image at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:We defined sagittal alignment targets using L1PA (relative to PI) and the T4-L1PA mismatch, which are both directly modifiable during surgery. In patients undergoing long fusion to the sacrum, realignment based on these targets may lead to fewer mechanical failures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Understanding the mechanism and extent of preoperative deformity in revision procedures may provide data to prevent future failures in lumbar spinal fusion patients. METHODS:ASD patients without prior spine surgery (PRIMARY) and with prior short (SHORT) and long (LONG) fusions were included. SHORT patients were stratified into modes of failure: implant, junctional, malalignment, and neurologic. Baseline demographics, spinopelvic alignment, offset from alignment targets, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared across PRIMARY and SHORT cohorts. Segmental lordosis analyses, assessing under-, match, or over-correction to segmental and global lordosis targets, were performed by SRS-Schwab coronal curve type and construct length. RESULTS:Among 785 patients, 430 (55%) were PRIMARY and 355 (45%) were revisions. Revision procedures included 181 (23%) LONG and 174 (22%) SHORT corrections. SHORT modes of failure included 27% implant, 40% junctional, 73% malalignment, and/or 28% neurologic. SHORT patients were older, frailer, and had worse baseline deformity (PT, PI-LL, SVA) and PROMs (NRS, ODI, VR-12, SRS-22) compared to primary patients (p < 0.001). Segmental lordosis analysis identified 93%, 88%, and 62% undercorrected patients at LL, L1-L4, and L4-S1, respectively. SHORT patients more often underwent 3-column osteotomies (30% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and had higher ISSG Surgical Invasiveness Score (87.8 vs. 78.3, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS:Nearly half of adult spinal deformity surgeries were revision fusions. Revision short fusions were associated with sagittal malalignment, often due to undercorrection of segmental lordosis goals, and frequently required more invasive procedures. Further initiatives to optimize alignment in lumbar fusions are needed to avoid costly and invasive deformity corrections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to assess the impact of fractional curve (FC) severity on curve progression and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing adult idiopathic scoliosis (AdIS) correction. METHODS:Patients with AdIS who had preoperative coronal plane deformity and who had undergone thoracolumbar fusion with a lowermost instrumented vertebra (LIV) between L1 and L4 were included. Patients were stratified by 6-week postoperative FC severity (small FC, ≤ 40th percentile, large FC, ≥ 60th percentile of the entire cohort; calculated as the Cobb angle between LIV and S1) and age groups. Preoperative to 2-year postoperative changes in FC were evaluated using Student t-tests. Demographics, spinopelvic alignment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were compared using chi-square tests for categorical variables and Student t-tests for quantitative variables. Multivariate regression analyses, accounting for age, sex, frailty, and 6-week postoperative LIV, were also performed when feasible to assess the impact of FC on 2-year postoperative outcomes. RESULTS:In total, 86 patients, with 34 in the group with small FCs and 34 in the group with large FCs, were examined (18 were in the group with medium FC). The mean age (36.4 years for those with small FCs vs 36.0 years for those with large FCs, p > 0.05) was similar. Preoperatively, spinopelvic parameters and PROMs were comparable (p > 0.05). Two years postoperatively, higher postoperative FC was associated with larger thoracolumbar deformity (i.e., higher thoracolumbar/lumbar/lumbosacral Cobb angles) and lower perceived lumbar stiffness (p < 0.05); however, other PROMs and complications, including revisions, were comparable (p > 0.05). Bidirectional change in postoperative FC was associated with a lower C7 pelvic angle and lower C7 plumb line (R2 = -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.00, p = 0.050). Across all patients, the mean FC improved from baseline to 6 weeks postoperatively (from 18.1° to 6.5°, p < 0.001) but changed minimally from 6 weeks to 2 years postoperatively (from 6.5° to 6.5°, p = 0.942). After stratification, the cohort with small FCs exhibited a relative increase (from 1.6° to 3.5°, p < 0.001), whereas the cohort with large FCs noted a nonsignificant change (from 11.9° to 9.8°, p = 0.121) in FC over time. CONCLUSIONS:Following surgery for AdIS, larger residual lumbosacral FCs were not correlated with adverse events or poor outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. FCs may improve or worsen over time to drive improvement in global coronal balance surgery, but are not associated with adverse outcomes or reoperation during the first 2 years after surgery.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients with sagittal plane deformity (N) or structural lumbar/thoraco-lumbar (TL) curves can be treated with fusions stopping at the TL junction or extending to the upper thoracic (UT) spine. This study evaluates the impact on cost/cumulative quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in patients treated with TL vs UT fusion. METHODS:ASD patients with > 4-level fusion and 2-year follow-up were included. Index and total episode-of-care costs were estimated using average itemized direct costs obtained from hospital records. Cumulative QALY gained were calculated from preoperative to 2-year postoperative change in Short Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) scores. The TL and UT groups comprised patients with upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) at T9-T12 and T2-T5, respectively. RESULTS:Of 566 patients with type N or L curves, mean age was 63.2 ± 12.1 years, 72% were female and 93% Caucasians. Patients in the TL group had better sagittal vertical axis (7.3 ± 6.9 vs. 9.2 ± 8.1 cm, p = 0.01), lower surgical invasiveness (- 30; p < 0.001), and shorter OR time (- 35 min; p = 0.01). Index and total costs were 20% lower in the TL than in the UT group (p < 0.001). Cost/QALY was 65% lower (492,174.6 vs. 963,391.4), and 2-year QALY gain was 40% higher, in the TL than UT group (0.15 vs. 0.10; p = 0.02). Multivariate model showed TL fusions had lower total cost (p = 0.001) and higher QALY gain (p = 0.03) than UT fusions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In Schwab type N or L curves, TL fusions showed lower 2-year cost and improved QALY gain without increased reoperation rates or length of stay than UT fusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Previous work comparing ASD to a normative population demonstrated that a large proportion of lumbar lordosis is lost proximally (L1-L4). The current study expands on these findings by collectively investigating regional angles and spinal contours. METHODS:119 asymptomatic volunteers with full-body free-standing radiographs were used to identify age-and-PI models of each Vertebra Pelvic Angle (VPA) from L5 to T10. These formulas were then applied to a cohort of primary surgical ASD patients without coronal malalignment. Loss of lumbar lordosis (LL) was defined as the offset between age-and-PI normative value and pre-operative alignment. Spine shapes defined by VPAs were compared and analyzed using paired t-tests. RESULTS:362 ASD patients were identified (age = 64.4 ± 13, 57.1% females). Compared to their age-and-PI normative values, patients demonstrated a significant loss in LL of 17 ± 19° in the following distribution: 14.1% had "No loss" (mean = 0.1 ± 2.3), 22.9% with 10°-loss (mean = 9.9 ± 2.9), 22.1% with 20°-loss (mean = 20.0 ± 2.8), and 29.3% with 30°-loss (mean = 33.8 ± 6.0). "No loss" patients' spine was slightly posterior to the normative shape from L4 to T10 (VPA difference of 2°), while superimposed on the normative one from S1 to L2 and became anterior at L1 in the "10°-loss" group. As LL loss increased, ASD and normative shapes offset extended caudally to L3 for the "20°-loss" group and L4 for the "30°-loss" group. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:As LL loss increases, the difference between ASD and normative shapes first occurs proximally and then progresses incrementally caudally. Understanding spinal contour and LL loss location may be key to achieving sustainable correction by identifying optimal and personalized postoperative shapes.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the impact of correcting to normative segmental lordosis values on post-operative outcomes. BACKGROUND:Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remains unclear. METHODS:Patients were grouped based on offset to normative segmental lordosis values, extracted from recent publications. Matched patients were within 10% of the cohort's mean offset, less than or over 10% were under- and over-corrected. Surgical technique, PROMs, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and 2-year. RESULTS:510 patients with an average age of 64.6, mean CCI 2.08, and average follow-up of 25 months. L4-5 was least likely to be matched (19.1%), while L4-S1 was the most likely (24.3%). More patients were overcorrected at proximal levels (T10-L2; Undercorrected, U: 32.2% vs. Matched, M: 21.7% vs. Overcorrected, O: 46.1%) and undercorrected at distal levels (L4-S1: U: 39.0% vs. M: 24.3% vs. O: 36.8%). Postoperative ODI was comparable across correction groups at all spinal levels except at L4-S1 and T10-L2/L4-S1, where overcorrected patients and matched were better than undercorrected (U: 32.1 vs. M: 25.4 vs. O: 26.5, P=0.005; U: 36.2 vs. M: 24.2 vs. O: 26.8, P=0.001; respectively). Patients overcorrected at T10-L2 experienced higher rates of proximal junctional failure (PJF) (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P<0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) (U: -9.2±9.4° vs. M: -9.6±9.1° vs. O: -12.2±10.0°, P<0.001), whereas undercorrection at these levels led to higher rates of revision for implant failure (U: 14.2% vs. M: 7.3% vs. O: 6.4%, P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing fusion for adult spinal deformity suffer higher rates of PJF with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Severe sagittal plane deformity with loss of L4-S1 lordosis is disabling and can be improved through various surgical techniques. However, data is limited on the differing ability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to achieve alignment goals in severely malaligned patients. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To examine surgical techniques aimed at restoring L4-S1 lordosis in severe adult spinal deformity (ASD). DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:A total of 96 patients who underwent ALIF, PSO, and TLIF were included in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The following data were observed for all cases: patient demographics, spinopelvic parameters, complications, and PROMs. METHODS:Severe ASD patients with preoperative PI-LL >20°, L4-S1 lordosis <30°, and full body radiographs and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline and six-week postoperative visit were included. Patients were grouped into ALIF (1-2 level ALIF at L4-S1), PSO (L4/L5 PSO), and TLIF (1-2 level TLIF at L4-S1). Comparative analyses were performed on demographics, radiographic spinopelvic parameters, complications, and PROMs. RESULTS:Among the 96 included patients, 40 underwent ALIF, 27 underwent PSO, and 29 underwent TLIF. At baseline, cohorts had comparable age, sex, race, Edmonton frailty scores and radiographic spinopelvic parameters (p>0.05). However, PSO was performed more often in revision cases (p<0.001). Following surgery, L4-S1 lordosis correction (p=0.001) was comparable among ALIF and PSO patients and caudal lordotic apex migration (p=0.044) was highest among ALIF patients. PSO patients had higher intraoperative estimated blood loss (p<0.001) and motor deficits (p=0.049), and in-hospital ICU admission (p=0.022) and blood products given (p=0.004) but were otherwise comparable in terms of length of stay, blood transfusion given, and postoperative admission to rehab. Likewise, 90-day postoperative complication profiles and six-week PROMs were comparable as well. CONCLUSIONS:ALIF can restore L4-S1 sagittal alignment as powerfully as PSO, with fewer intra-operative and in-hospital complications. When feasible, ALIF is a suitable alternative to PSO and likely superior to TLIF for correcting L4-S1 lordosis among patients with severe sagittal malalignment.

BACKGROUND:The benefit of chemoprophylaxis (CPX) agents in preventing venous thromboembolism must be weighed against potential risks. Current literature regarding the efficacy of CPX after laminectomies with or without fusion is limited, with no clear consensus to inform guidelines. OBJECTIVE:This study evaluated the association between CPX and surgical complications after lumbar laminectomy with and without fusion. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective study of patients at a single large academic institution. METHODS:test following propensity score matching, and patients on CPX were further stratified by fusion status. RESULTS:The CPX group had higher body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists grades. Rates of venous thromboembolism, epidural hematomas, infections, postoperative incision and drainage, transfusions, wound dehiscence, and reoperation were not associated with CPX. Moist dressings were more frequent, and average days of drain duration were longer with CPX. Overall postoperative complication rate and length of stay (LOS) were greater with CPX. The fusion subgroup had a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, had a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, was younger, had more women, and underwent more minimally invasive laminectomies. While estimated blood loss, operative times, and LOS were significantly greater in the fusion group, there was no difference in rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CPX after lumbar laminectomies with or without fusion was not associated with increased rates of epidural hematomas, wound complications, or reoperation. Patients receiving CPX had more postoperative cardiac complications, but it is possible that surgeons were more likely to prescribe CPX for higher-risk patients. They also had higher rates of ileus and moist dressings, greater LOS, and longer length of drain duration. Patients who underwent lumbar laminectomy with fusion on CPX tended to be lower risk yet incurred greater blood loss, operative times, LOS, cardiac complications, and hematomas/seromas than patients not undergoing fusion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:This retrospective study compared surgical complications of lumbar laminectomies in patients who received chemoprophylaxis vs patients who did not. Chemoprophylaxis was not associated with increased rates of epidural hematomas, wound complications, or reoperation, but it was associated with higher rates of postoperative cardiac complications and ileus.

BACKGROUND:Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is common in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Limited data exist on the prevalence of hip OA in patients with ASD, or on its impact on baseline and postoperative alignment and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Therefore, this paper will assess the prevalence and impact of hip OA on alignment and PROMs. METHODS:Patients with ASD who underwent L1-pelvis or longer fusions were included. Two independent reviewers graded hip OA with the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) classification and stratified it by severity into non-severe (KL grade 1 or 2) and severe (KL grade 3 or 4). Radiographic parameters and PROMs were compared among 3 patient groups: Hip-Spine (hip KL grade 3 or 4 bilaterally), Unilateral (UL)-Hip (hip KL grade 3 or 4 unilaterally), or Spine (hip KL grade 1 or 2 bilaterally). RESULTS:Of 520 patients with ASD who met inclusion criteria for an OA prevalence analysis, 34% (177 of 520) had severe bilateral hip OA and unilateral or bilateral hip arthroplasty had been performed in 8.7% (45 of 520). A subset of 165 patients had all data components and were examined: 68 Hip-Spine, 32 UL-Hip, and 65 Spine. Hip-Spine patients were older (67.9 ± 9.5 years, versus 59.6 ± 10.1 years for Spine and 65.8 ± 7.5 years for UL-Hip; p < 0.001) and had a higher frailty index (4.3 ± 2.6, versus 2.7 ± 2.0 for UL-Hip and 2.9 ± 2.0 for Spine; p < 0.001). At 1 year, the groups had similar lumbar lordosis, yet the Hip-Spine patients had a worse sagittal vertebral axis (SVA) measurement (45.9 ± 45.5 mm, versus 25.1 ± 37.1 mm for UL-Hip and 19.0 ± 39.3 mm for Spine; p = 0.001). Hip-Spine patients also had worse Veterans RAND-12 Physical Component Summary scores at baseline (25.7 ± 9.3, versus 28.7 ± 9.8 for UL-Hip and 31.3 ± 10.5 for Spine; p = 0.005) and 1 year postoperatively (34.5 ± 11.4, versus 40.3 ± 10.4 for UL-Hip and 40.1 ± 10.9 for Spine; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS:This study of operatively treated ASD revealed that 1 in 3 patients had severe hip OA bilaterally. Such patients with severe bilateral hip OA had worse baseline SVA and PROMs that persisted 1 year following ASD surgery, despite correction of lordosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.