Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The shared decision-making (SDM) process provides an opportunity to answer frequently asked questions (FAQs). The authors aimed to present a concise list of answers to FAQs to aid in SDM for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. METHODS:From a prospective, multicenter ASD database, patients enrolled between 2008 and 2016 who underwent fusions of 5 or more levels with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. All deformity types were included to provide general applicability. The authors compiled a list of FAQs from patients undergoing ASD surgery and used a retrospective analysis to provide answers. All responses are reported as either the means or the proportions reaching the minimal clinically important difference at the 2-year follow-up interval. RESULTS:Of 689 patients with ASD who were eligible for 2-year follow-up, 521 (76%) had health-related quality-of-life scores available at the time of that follow-up. The mean age at the initial surgery was 58.2 years, and 78% of patients were female. The majority (73%) underwent surgery with a posterior-only approach. The mean number of fused levels was 12.2. Revision surgery accounted for 48% of patients. The authors answered 12 FAQs as follows:1. Will my pain improve? Back and leg pain will both be reduced by approximately 50%.2. Will my activity level improve? Approximately 65% of patients feel improvement in their activity level.3. Will I feel better about myself? More than 70% of patients feel improvement in their appearance.4. Is there a chance I will get worse? 4.1% feel worse at 2 years postoperatively.5. What is the likelihood I will have a complication? 67.8% will have a major or minor complication, with 47.8% having a major complication.6. Will I need another surgery? 25.0% will have a reoperation within 2 years.7. Will I regret having surgery? 6.5% would not choose the same treatment.8. Will I get a blood transfusion? 73.7% require a blood transfusion.9. How long will I stay in the hospital? You need to stay 8.1 days on average.10. Will I have to go to the ICU? 76.0% will have to go to the ICU.11. Will I be able to return to work? More than 70% will be working at 1 year postoperatively.12. Will I be taller after surgery? You will be 1.1 cm taller on average. CONCLUSIONS:The above list provides concise, practical answers to FAQs encountered in the SDM process while counseling patients for ASD surgery.

BACKGROUND:The Miller et al adult spinal deformity frailty index (ASD-FI) correlates with complication risk; however, its development was not rooted in clinical outcomes, and the 40 factors needed for its calculation limit the index's clinical utility. The present study aimed to develop a simplified, weighted frailty index for ASD patients METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of a single-center database. Component ASD-FI parameters contributing to overall ASD-FI score were assessed via Pearson correlation. Top significant, clinically relevant factors were regressed against ASD-FI score to generate the modified ASD-FI (mASD-FI). Component mASD-FI factors were regressed against incidence of medical complications, and factor weights were calculated from regression of these coefficients. Total mASD-FI score ranged from 0 to 21, and was calculated by summing weights of expressed parameters. Linear regression and published ASD-FI cutoffs generated corresponding mASD-FI frailty cutoffs: not frail (NF, <7), frail (7-12), severely frail (SF, >12). Analysis of variance assessed the relationship between frailty category and validated baseline measures of pain and disability at baseline. RESULTS:= .001). CONCLUSIONS:This study modifies an existing ASD frailty index and proposes a weighted, shorter mASD-FI. The mASD-FI relies less on patient-reported variables, and it weights component factors by their contribution to adverse outcomes. Because increasing mASD-FI score is associated with inferior clinical measures of pain and disability, the mASD-FI may serve as a valuable tool for preoperative risk assessment.

BACKGROUND:In the setting of congenital C1 occipitalization and C2-3 fusion, significant strain is placed on the atlantoaxial joint. Vertebral fusion both above and below the atlantoaxial joint (i.e., a "sandwich") creates substantial instability. We retrospectively report on a case series of "sandwich fusion" atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD), describing the associated clinical characteristics and detailing surgical treatment. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the largest investigation to date of this congenital subgroup of AAD. METHODS:Seventy consecutive patients with sandwich fusion AAD, from one senior surgeon, were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical features and the surgical treatment results were assessed using descriptive statistics. No funding sources or potential conflict of interest-associated biases exist. RESULTS:The mean patient age was 42.2 years (range: 5-77 years); 36 patients were male, and 34 were female. Fifty-eight patients (82.9%) had myelopathy, with Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores ranging 4-16 (mean: 12.9). Cranial neuropathy was involved in 10 cases (14.3%). The most common presentation age group was 31 to 40 years (24 cases, 34.3%). Radiological findings revealed brainstem and/or cervical-medullar compression (58 cases, 82.9%), syringomyelia (16 cases, 22.9%), Chiari malformation (12 cases, 17.1%), cervical spinal stenosis (10 cases, 14.3%), high scapula deformity (1 case, 1.4%), os odontoideum (1 case, 1.4%), and dysplasia of the atlas (1 case, 1.4%). Computed tomography angiography was performed in 27 cases, and vertebral artery (VA) anomalies were identified in 14 cases (51.9%). All 70 patients underwent surgical treatment, without spinal cord or VA injury. Four patients (5.7%) suffered complications, including 1 wound infection, 1 screw loosening, and 2 cases of bulbar paralysis. In the 58 patients with myelopathy, the mean JOA score increased from 12.9 to 14.5. The average follow-up time was 50.5 months (range: 24-120 months). All 70 cases achieved solid atlantoaxial fusion at the final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:Sandwich fusion AAD, a unique subgroup of AAD, has distinctive clinical features and associated malformations such as cervical-medullar compression, syringomyelia, and VA anomalies. Surgical treatment of AAD was associated with myelopathy improvement and minimal complication occurrence.

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:This study aims to report the incidence, risk factors, and recovery rate of neurological complications (NC) in patients with adult cervical deformity (ACD) who underwent corrective surgery. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:ACD patients undergoing surgery from 2013 to 2015 were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter database. Patients were separated into 2 groups according to the presence of neurological complications (NC vs no-NC groups). The types, timing, recovery patterns, and interventions for NC were recorded. Patients' demographics, surgical details, radiographic parameters, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores were compared. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:106 patients were prospectively included. Average age was 60.8 years with a mean of 18.2 months follow-up. The overall incidence of NC was 18.9%; of these, 68.1% were major complications. Nerve root motor deficit was the most common complication, followed by radiculopathy, sensory deficit, and spinal cord injury. The proportion of complications occurring within 30 days of surgery was 54.5%. The recovery rate from neurological complication was high (90.9%), with most of the recoveries occurring within 6 months and continuing even after 12 months. Only 2 patients (1.9%) had continuous neurological complication. No demographic or preoperative radiographic risk factors could be identified, and anterior corpectomy and posterior foraminotomy were found to be performed less in the NC group. The final HRQOL outcome was not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Our data is valuable to surgeons and patients to better understand the neurological complications before performing or undergoing complex cervical deformity surgery.

The elderly are the largest segment of patients undergoing spine surgery and are expected to continue to grow with time. Proper preoperative evaluation of the elderly is something every spine surgeon will need to be adept at. Evaluating and optimizing an elderly patient leads to greater patient satisfaction, decreased postoperative complications and overall mortality. Age, while traditionally thought to predict preoperative risk, has consistently been a poor predictor of complications in spine patients. The concept of frailty and various related clinical tools have been developed and consistently validated to predict a given patient's capacity to successfully undergo surgery.

The aim of this study was to investigate the cost utility of treating non-frail versus frail or severely frail adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. 79 surgical ASD patients >18 years with available frailty and ODI data at baseline and 2-years post-surgery (2Y) were included. Utility data was calculated using the ODI converted to the SF-6D. QALYs utilized a 3% discount rate to account for decline to life expectancy (LE). Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database. ICER was compared between non-operative (non-op.) and operative (op.) NF and F/SF patients at 2Y and LE. When compared to non-operative ASD, the ICER was $447,943.96 vs. $313,211.01 for NF and F/SF at 2Y, and $68,311.35 vs. $47,764.61 for NF and F/SF at LE. Frail and severely frail patients had lower cost per QALY compared to not frail patients at 2Y and life expectancy, and had lower ICER values when compared to a non-operative cohort of ASD patients. While these results support operative correction of frail and severely frail patients, it is important to note that these patients are often at worse baseline disability, which is closely related to frailty scores, and have more opportunity to improve postoperatively. Furthermore, there may be a threshold of frailty that is not operable due to the risk of severe complications that is not captured by this analysis. While future research should investigate economic outcomes at extended follow up times, these findings support the cost effectiveness of ASD surgery at all frailty states.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:This study aimed to identify complication trends of Chiari Malformation Type 1 patients (CM-1) for certain procedures and concomitant diagnoses on a national level. Materials/UNASSIGNED:-test when necessary. Binary logistic regression was utilized to find significant factors associated with complication rate. Certain surgical procedures were analyzed for their relationship with postoperative outcomes. Results/UNASSIGNED:< 0.05). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Chiari patients undergoing craniectomies as well as instrumented fusions are at a higher risk of postoperative complications especially when the instrumented fusions were performed on >4 levels.

BACKGROUND: Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and allograft containing mesenchymal stem cells (live cell) are popular biologic substitutes for iliac crest autograft used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Use of these agents in the pathogenesis of postoperative radiculitis remains controversial. Recent studies have independently linked minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF with increased radiculitis risk compared to open TLIF. The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of postoperative radiculitis in open and MIS TLIF patients along with its relationship to concurrent biologic adjuvant use. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years undergoing single-level TLIF from June 2012 to December 2018 with minimum 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were rate of radiculitis, intra- and postoperative complications, revision surgery; length of stay (LOS), and estimated blood loss (EBL). RESULTS:= .038, N = 336) compared to other combinations of surgical approach and biologic use. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the MIS approach nor BMP use is an independent risk factor for post-TLIF radiculitis. However, risk of radiculitis significantly increases when they are used in tandem. This should be considered when selecting biological adjuvants for MIS TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS: 3.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:The aim is to assess the relationship between cervicothoracic inflection point and baseline disability, as well as the relationship between clinical outcomes and pre- to postoperative changes in inflection point. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Cervical deformity (CD) patients with baseline and 3-month (3M) postoperative radiographic, clinical, and inflection data were grouped by region of inflection point: C6 or above, C6-C7 to C7-T1, T1, or below. Inflection was defined as: Distal-most level where cervical lordosis (CL) changes to thoracic kyphosis (TK). Differences in alignment and patient factors across pre- and postoperative inflection point groups were assessed, as were outcomes by the inclusion of inflection in the CD-corrective fusion construct. Results/UNASSIGNED:= 0.018). The location of postoperative inflection was associated with variation in 3M alignment: Inflection C6 or above was associated with less Pelvic Tilt (PT), PT and a trend of larger cSVA. Location of inflection or inclusion in fusion was not associated with reoperation or distal junctional kyphosis. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Incorporating the inflection point between CL and TK in the fusion construct was associated with superior restoration of cervical alignment and horizontal gaze for surgical CD patients.