Faculty Bibliography

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.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of outcomes in single-level spine and primary hip and knee arthroplasty patients. OBJECTIVE:Compare baseline and post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery procedures with total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to further define outcomes in orthopedic surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Computer-adaptive Patient Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS) allows for standardized assessment of the Health Related Quality of Life across different disease states. METHODS:Patients who underwent spine surgery (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement, lumbar laminectomy, microscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or adult reconstruction surgery (THA, TKA) were grouped. Mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Baseline (BL) and 6-month (6 M) PROMIS scores of Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Pain Intensity were determined. Paired t-tests compared differences in CCI, BL, 6 M, and change in PROMIS scores for spine and adult reconstruction procedures. RESULTS:304 spine surgery patients (Age=58.1 ± 15.6; 42.9% Female) and 347 adult reconstruction patients (Age=62.9 ± 11.8; 54.1% Female) were compared. Spine surgery groups had more disability and pain at baseline than adult reconstruction patients according to Physical Function [(21.0, 22.2, 9.07, 12.6, 10.4) vs (35.8, 35.0), respectively, p < .01], Pain Interference [(80.1, 74.1, 89.6, 92.5, 90.6) vs (64.0, 63.9), respectively, p < .01] and Pain Intensity [(53.0, 53.1, 58.3, 58.5, 56.1) vs (53.4, 53.8), respectively, p < .01]. At 6 M, spine surgery patients remained more disabled and had more pain compared to adult reconstruction patients. Over the 6-month timespan, spine patients experienced greater improvements than adult reconstruction patients in terms of Physical Function [(+8.7, +22.2, +9.7, +12.9, +12.1) vs (+5.3, +3.9), respectively, p < .01] and Pain Interference scores [(-15.4, -28.1, -14.7, -13.1, -12.3) vs (-8.3, -6.0), respectively, p < .01]. CONCLUSIONS:Spinal surgery patients had lower BL and 6 M PROMIS scores, but greater relative improvement in PROMIS scores compared to adult reconstruction patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

OBJECTIVE:Although surgical treatment can provide significant improvement of symptomatic adult cervical spine deformity (ACSD), few reports have focused on the associated complications. The objective of this study was to assess complication rates at a minimum 1-year follow-up based on a prospective multicenter series of ACSD patients treated surgically. METHODS:A prospective multicenter database of consecutive operative ACSD patients was reviewed for perioperative (< 30 days), early (30-90 days), and delayed (> 90 days) complications with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Enrollment required at least 1 of the following: cervical kyphosis > 10°, cervical scoliosis > 10°, C2-7 sagittal vertical axis > 4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle > 25°. RESULTS:Of 167 patients, 133 (80%, mean age 62 years, 62% women) had a minimum 1-year follow-up (mean 1.8 years). The most common diagnoses were degenerative (45%) and iatrogenic (17%) kyphosis. Almost 40% of patients were active or past smokers, 17% had osteoporosis, and 84% had at least 1 comorbidity. The mean baseline Neck Disability Index and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores were 47 and 13.6, respectively. Surgical approaches were anterior-only (18%), posterior-only (47%), and combined (35%). A total of 132 complications were reported (54 minor and 78 major), and 74 (56%) patients had at least 1 complication. The most common complications included dysphagia (11%), distal junctional kyphosis (9%), respiratory failure (6%), deep wound infection (6%), new nerve root motor deficit (5%), and new sensory deficit (5%). A total of 4 deaths occurred that were potentially related to surgery, 2 prior to 1-year follow-up (1 cardiopulmonary and 1 due to obstructive sleep apnea and narcotic use) and 2 beyond 1-year follow-up (both cardiopulmonary and associated with revision procedures). Twenty-six reoperations were performed in 23 (17%) patients, with the most common indications of deep wound infection (n = 8), DJK (n = 7), and neurological deficit (n = 6). Although anterior-only procedures had a trend toward lower overall (42%) and major (21%) complications, rates were not significantly different from posterior-only (57% and 33%, respectively) or combined (61% and 37%, respectively) approaches (p = 0.29 and p = 0.38, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:This report provides benchmark rates for ACSD surgery complications at a minimum 1-year (mean 1.8 years) follow-up. The marked health and functional impact of ACSD, the frail population it affects, and the high rates of surgical complications necessitate a careful risk-benefit assessment when contemplating surgery. Collectively, these findings provide benchmarks for complication rates and may prove useful for patient counseling and efforts to improve the safety of care.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE:It is being increasingly recognized that adult cervical deformity (ACD) is correlated with significant pain, myelopathy, and disability, and that patients who undergo deformity correction gain significant benefit. However, there are no defined thresholds of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in Neck Disability Index (NDI) and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores. METHODS:Patients of interest were consecutive patients with ACD who underwent cervical deformity correction. ACD was defined as C2-7 sagittal Cobb angle ≥ 10° (kyphosis), C2-7 coronal Cobb angle ≥ 10° (cervical scoliosis), C2-7 sagittal vertical axis ≥ 4 cm, and/or chin-brow vertical angle ≥ 25°. Data were obtained from a consecutive cohort of patients from a multiinstitutional prospective database maintained across 13 sites. Distribution-based MCID, anchor-based MCID, and minimally detectable measurement difference (MDMD) were calculated. RESULTS:A total of 73 patients met inclusion criteria and had sufficient 1-year follow-up. In the cohort, 42 patients (57.5%) were female. The mean age at the time of surgery was 62.23 years, and average body mass index was 29.28. The mean preoperative NDI was 46.49 and mJOA was 13.17. There was significant improvement in NDI at 1 year (46.49 vs 37.04; p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in preoperative and 1-year mJOA (13.17 vs 13.7; p = 0.12). Using multiple techniques to yield MCID thresholds specific to the ACD population, the authors obtained values of 5.42 to 7.48 for the NDI, and 1.00 to 1.39 for the mJOA. The MDMD was 6.4 for the NDI, and 1.8 for the mJOA. Therefore, based on their results, the authors recommend using an MCID threshold of 1.8 for the mJOA, and 7.0 for the NDI in patients with ACD. CONCLUSIONS:The ACD-specific MCID thresholds for NDI and mJOA are similar to the reported MCID following surgery for degenerative cervical disease. Additional studies are needed to verify these findings. Nonetheless, the findings here will be useful for future studies evaluating the success of surgery for patients with ACD undergoing deformity correction.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:This study is a single-center retrospective radiographic review. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to evaluate a novel measurement parameter, mandibular slope (MS), as a measure of horizontal gaze. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Assessment of sagittal spinal alignment is essential in the evaluation of spinal deformity patients. Ability to achieve a horizontal gaze, a parameter of sagittal alignment, is needed for the performance of daily activities. Standard measures of horizontal gaze, including the gold-standard chin-brow to vertical angle (CBVA) and the surrogate measures McGregor's line (McGS) and Chamberlain's line (CS), require high-quality imaging, precise head positioning, and reliance on difficult to view visual landmarks. A novel measurement parameter, MS, utilizing the caudal margin of the mandible on standard lateral spine radiographs is proposed. METHODS:90 radiographs from spine deformity patients with or without spinal implants from a single center were evaluated. Three spine surgery fellows independently measured CBVA, McGS, CS, and MS at two timepoints at least one week apart to assess accuracy and reliability. MS was measured as the angle created by the inferior edge of the mandibular body and the horizontal. Formulas for calculating CBVA based on the above parameters were derived and compared to the actual CBVA. RESULTS:Mean age was 49.7 years, 76 females and 14 males. CBVA correlated with CS, McGS, and MS, r = 0.85, 0.81, and 0.80, respectively (p < 0.001). Standard error between real CBVA and calculated CBVA using CS (0.4 ± 4.79) and McGS (0.4 ± 3.9) was higher than that calculated using MS (- 0.2 ± 4.3). ICC demonstrated the highest inter-observer reliability with MS (0.999). MS had the highest intra-observer reliabilities 0.975, 0.981, and 0.988 (p < 0.001); CS and McGS also demonstrated high intra-observer reliability. CONCLUSIONS:MS is a promising measure of horizontal gaze that correlates highly with CBVA, has excellent intra- and inter-observer reliability with CBVA, and is easily measured using standard lateral spine radiographs.

Study Design/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective review of single institution. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To assess the relationship between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in thoracolumbar patients. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Included: Patients ≥18 years with a thoracolumbar spine condition (spinal stenosis, disc herniation, low back pain, disc degeneration, spondylolysis). Bivariate correlations assessed the linear relationships between ODI and PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Intensity, and Pain Interference). Correlation cutoffs assessed patients with high and low correlation between ODI and PROMIS. Linear regression predicted the relationship of ODI to PROMIS. Results/UNASSIGNED:= 0.499) of the variance in Pain Intensity score. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:There is a large amount of variability with PROMIS that cannot be accounted for with ODI. ODI questions regarding walking, social life, and lifting ability correlate strongly with PROMIS while sitting, standing, and sleeping do not. These results reinforce the utility of PROMIS as a valid assessment for low back disability, while indicating the need for further evaluation of the factors responsible for variation between PROMIS and ODI.

OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to define a treatment strategy for patients with severe cervical deformity(sCD). METHODS:Surgical patients with sCD were isolated based on preop radiographic parameters. We sent 10 sCD cases to 7 surgeons to find consensus on approach, upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV), lower instrumented vertebrae (LIV), osteotomy. We performed a descriptive analysis and created a treatment algorithm from the survey then analyzed a database of surgical patients to find the frequency of following our algorithm. RESULTS:We found consensus on 7 cases for posterior approach due to cervicothoracic deformity and of 15 patients within our sCD database that had cervicothoracic deformity, 13/15 had posterior approach. There was consensus on 2 cases for antero-posterior approach due to local kyphosis and of 25 patients that had local kyphosis, 18/25 had an anterior approach. In 4 cases there was consensus of UIV of C2 and of 35 cases that had posterior fusion >6 levels, 20/35 had a UIV of C2. In 3 cases there was consensus of a LIV below a previously fused spine. Of 36 patients that had a fusion of T6 or higher, 34 had a LIV below the previous UIV. In 6 cases there was consensus against an osteotomy due to cervical spine flexibility and 9/12 patients that had an osteotomy in our database had no flexibility on dynamic radiographs. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We outline here an algorithm for deciding approach, UIV, LIV and whether to do an osteotomy for patients with sCD based on consensus recommendations amongst spine surgeons.