Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Malalignment following cervical spine deformity (CSD) surgery can negatively impact outcomes and increase complications. Despite the growing ability to plan alignment, it remains unclear whether preoperative goals are achieved with surgery. The objective of this study was to assess how good surgeons are at achieving their preoperative goal alignment following CSD surgery. METHODS:Adult patients with CSD were prospectively enrolled into a multicenter registry. Surgeons documented alignment goals prior to surgery, including C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), C2-7 sagittal Cobb angle, T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL), and C7-S1 SVA. Goals were compared with achieved alignment, and the offsets (achieved goal) were calculated. General linear models were created for offset magnitude for each alignment parameter, controlling for baseline deformity and surgical factors. RESULTS:The 88 enrolled patients had a mean age of 63.6 ± 13.0 years. The mean number of anterior and posterior instrumented levels was 3.5 ± 1.0 and 10.6 ± 4.5, respectively. Surgeons failed to achieve their preoperative alignment goals by an average of 17.2 (range 0.1-75.4) mm for C2-7 SVA, 10.3° (range 0.1°-45.5°) for C2-7 sagittal Cobb angle, 15.6° (range 0.0°-42.9°) for TS-CL, and 34.2 (range 0.3-113.7) mm for C7-S1 SVA. The sagittal alignment parameters with the highest rate of extreme outliers were TS-CL and C7-S1 SVA, with 32.2% exceeding 20° and 60.8% exceeding 20 mm from goal alignment, respectively. After controlling for baseline deformity and operative parameters, the only factor associated with achieving targeted alignment for C2-7 sagittal Cobb angle was greater baseline thoracic kyphosis (TK; B = -0.148, 95% CI -0.288 to -0.007, p = 0.040), and for TS-CL, the only associated factor was lower baseline TS-CL (B = 0.187, 95% CI 0.027-0.347, p = 0.022). Both lower TK and greater TS-CL may reflect increased baseline deformity through greater thoracic compensation and increased TS-CL mismatch, respectively. No significant associations were identified for C2-7 SVA and C7-S1 SVA. CONCLUSIONS:Surgeons failed to achieve their preoperative alignment goals by an average of 17.2 mm for C2-7 SVA, 10.3° for C2-7 sagittal Cobb angle, 15.6° for TS-CL, and 34.2 mm for C7-S1 SVA. The few factors identified that were associated with offset between goal and achieved alignment suggest that achievement of goal alignment was most challenging for more severe deformities. Further advancements are needed to enable more consistent translation of preoperative alignment goals into the operating room for adult CSD correction. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01588054 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The spectrum of patients requiring adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is highly variable in baseline (BL) risk such as age, frailty, and deformity severity. Although improvements have been realized in ASD surgery over the past decade, it is unknown whether these carry over to high-risk patients. We aim to determine temporal differences in outcomes at 2 years after ASD surgery in patients stratified by BL risk. METHODS:Patients ≥18 years with complete pre- (BL) and 2-year (2Y) postoperative data from 2009 to 2018 were categorized as having undergone surgery from 2009 to 2013 [early] or from 2014 to 2018 [late]. High-risk [HR] patients met ≥2 of the criteria: (1) ++ BL pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis or SVA by Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab criteria, (2) elderly [≥70 years], (3) severe BL frailty, (4) high Charlson comorbidity index, (5) undergoing 3-column osteotomy, and (6) fusion of >12 levels, or >7 levels for elderly patients. Demographics, clinical outcomes, radiographic alignment targets, and complication rates were assessed by time period for high-risk patients. RESULTS:Of the 725 patients included, 52% (n = 377) were identified as HR. 47% (n = 338) had surgery pre-2014 [early], and 53% (n = 387) underwent surgery in 2014 or later [late]. There was a higher proportion of HR patients in Late group (56% vs 48%). Analysis by early/late status showed no significant differences in achieving improved radiographic alignment by SRS-Schwab, age-adjusted alignment goals, or global alignment and proportion proportionality by 2Y (all P > .05). Late/HR patients had significantly less poor clinical outcomes per SRS and Oswestry Disability Index (both P < .01). Late/HR patients had fewer complications (63% vs 74%, P = .025), reoperations (17% vs 30%, P = .002), and surgical infections (0.9% vs 4.3%, P = .031). Late/HR patients had lower rates of early proximal junctional kyphosis (10% vs 17%, P = .041) and proximal junctional failure (11% vs 22%, P = .003). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite operating on more high-risk patients between 2014 and 2018, surgeons effectively reduced rates of complications, mechanical failures, and reoperations, while simultaneously improving health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Correcting sagittal malalignment in adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a challenging task, often requiring complex surgical interventions like pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSOs). Different types of three-column osteotomies (3COs), including Schwab 3, Schwab 4, Schwab 4 with interbody cages, and the "sandwich" technique, aim to optimize alignment and fusion outcomes. The role of interbody cages in enhancing fusion and segmental correction remains unclear. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to compare outcomes among these 4 3CO techniques, evaluating the impact of cage use at the osteotomy site on postoperative radiographic imaging and clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:This is a multicenter retrospective study utilizing data from a prospective multicenter database of patients undergoing complex ASD surgery. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:Ninety-seven patients who underwent 1 of 4 3CO techniques for thoracolumbar ASD correction with at least 2 years of follow-up were included. The sample consisted of 29 patients who underwent Schwab 3 osteotomy, 20 Schwab 4, 28 Schwab 4 with interbody cages, and 20 who underwent "sandwich" osteotomy. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The Scoliosis Research Society-22 revised (SRS22r) questionnaire evaluating pain, activity, appearance, mental health, and satisfaction was used to evaluate patient reported outcomes and radiographic measures including segmental lordosis and fusion rates determined by 3 blinded reviewers were used to evaluate physiologic outcomes. METHODS:This study analyzed demographic data, radiographic outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, complications, and fusion rates over a 2-year follow-up period. Fusion status was determined via serial radiographs and evaluated independently by 3 blinded reviewers. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed to assess differences among the groups and the impact of interbody cage use on outcomes. RESULTS:Patients undergoing "sandwich" osteotomy exhibited worse preoperative leg pain scores and lower SRS22r activity (p=.015), appearance (p=.007), and mental health domain scores (p=.0015). No differences in complications were found among groups (p>.05). Patients who underwent osteotomy with a cage were more likely to have had previous spine fusion (91.7% vs. 71.4%, p=.010). Additionally, these patients had lower preoperative SRS22r mental domain (2.9±1 vs. 3.5±1, p=.009), satisfaction (2.3±1 vs. 2.7±1.2, p=.034), and SRS22r total scores (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.6±0.6, p=.0026) but demonstrated the greatest improvement in the mental health domain (0.9±0.7 vs. 0.3±0.9, p=.002). Cage use was associated with a larger mean change in segmental lordosis at the osteotomy site (32.9±9.6 vs. 28.7±9.5, p=.038). Fusion rates were significantly higher in the cage group (79.2% vs. 55.1%, p=.0012). Regression analysis identified cage use as an independent predictor for fusion (odds ratio, 3.338; 95% confidence interval, 1.108-10.054, p=.032). CONCLUSIONS:Interbody cage use at the osteotomy site during 3COs for ASD correction was associated with improved fusion rates and greater segmental lordosis without increasing complication rates. Incorporating cages may provide enhanced alignment and fusion outcomes in complex ASD surgeries.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of prospectively-collected data. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to define clinically relevant blood loss in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. BACKGROUND:Current definitions of excessive blood loss following spine surgery are highly variable and may be suboptimal in predicting adverse events (AE). METHODS:Adults undergoing complex ASD surgery were included. Estimated blood loss (EBL) was extracted for investigation, and estimated blood volume loss (EBVL) was calculated by dividing EBL by the preoperative blood volume utilizing Nadler's formula. LASSO regression was performed to identify five variables from demographic and peri-operative parameters. Logistic regression was subsequently performed to generate a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and estimate an optimal threshold for EBL and EBVL. Finally, the proportion of patients with AE plotted against EBL and EBVL to confirm the identified thresholds. RESULTS:In total 552 patients were included with a mean age of 60.7±15.1 years, 68% females, mean CCI was 1.0±1.6, and 22% experienced AEs. LASSO regression identified ASA score, baseline hypertension, preoperative albumin, and use of intra-operative crystalloids as the top predictors of an AE, in addition to EBL/EBVL. Logistic regression resulted in ROC curve which was used to identify a cut-off of 2.3 liters of EBL and 42% for EBVL. Patients exceeding these thresholds had AE rates of 36% (odds-ratio: 2.1, 95% CI [1.2-3.6]) and 31% (odds-ratio: 1.7, 95% CI [1.1-2.8]), compared to 21% for those below the thresholds of EBL and EBVL, respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In complex ASD surgery, intraoperative EBL of 2.3 liters and an EBVL of 42% are associated with clinically-significant AEs. These thresholds may be useful in guiding preoperative-patient-counseling, healthcare system quality initiatives, and clinical perioperative bloodloss management strategies in patients undergoing complex spine surgery. Additionally, similar methodology could be performed in other specialties to establish procedure-specific clinically-relevant bloodloss thresholds.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:This study evaluates the impact of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and knee arthroplasty on alignments and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMS) of patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery. BACKGROUND:The relationship between knee OA and spinal alignment in patients with ASD is incompletely understood. It is also unknown how patients with knee arthroplasty and ASD compare to ASD patients with native knees. METHODS:Baseline full-body radiographs were used, and hip and knee OA were graded by two independent reviewers using the KL classification. Spinopelvic parameters and PROMs were compared across the different knee OA groups and compared between patients with knee replacement and native knees. RESULTS:199 patients with bilateral non severe OA (G1), 31 patients with unilateral severe knee OA (G2), and 60 patients with bilateral severe knee OA (G3). Patients with severe knee OA presented with worse spinopelvic parameters. However, after multivariable regression analysis controlling for age, frailty, PI, T1PA, knee OA was an independent predictor of knee flexion (G1:-0.02±7.3, G2: 7.8±9.4, G3: 4.5±8.7, P<0.001), and ankle dorsiflexion (G1: 2.3±4.0, G2: 6.6±4.5, G3: 5.1±4.1, P<0.001). There was no difference in PROMs (P>0.05). Secondary analysis included 96 patients: 48 patients (50%) with non-severe knee OA, and 48 patients (50%) with knee replacement. There was no difference in radiographic parameters or PROMs between the groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this study of complex ASD patients, patients with worse spinal deformity were more likely to have concomitant knee OA. Knee OA was shown to be a predictor of knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion angles, but was not associated with worse PROMs in this study population. Patients with knee arthroplasty, however, had comparable spinal alignment and PROMs relative to those with mild OA.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:While the treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD) has increasingly favored surgical correction, the incidence of revision surgery remains high. Yet, little has been explored on the association between the etiology of reoperation and patient outcomes. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of the etiology of revision surgery on postoperative outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective cohort analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:891 ASD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Complications, radiographic parameters, disability metrics. METHODS:Operative ASD patients with at least 1 revision stratified by etiology (mechanical [Mech] -pseudoarthrosis, thoracic decompensation without junctional failure, x-ray malalignment, implant failure, implant malposition, PJK ± major malalignment; infection [Infx]-early vs late onset, major vs minor; wound [Wound]; SI pain [SI Pain]). Excluded multiple etiologies, and intraoperative or medical complications. Data from the immediate visit prior to the final revision was used as baseline (rBL). Follow-up based on visits best aligned to time points after final revision. Radiographic parameters SVA, PI-LL, and PT were used to assess alignment post-revision via ANOVA. Multivariate analysis controlling for relevant covariates assessed outcome differences after final revision surgery. RESULTS:891 MET INCLUSION (AGE: 60.40±14.17, 77% F, BMI: 27.97±5.87 KG/M2, CCI: : 1.80±1.73). Etiology groups were as follows: Mech: 432; Infx: 296; Wound: 65; SI Pain: 98. Surgically, Infx had lower rates of osteotomy, interbody fusion, and decompression (p<.05). Infx and SI Pain demonstrated similar correction in radiographics SVA, PI-LL, and PT (p>.05), whereas Mech had significantly less improvement by 2 years (p<.003) that improved by 5 years. Compared to without revision, the odds of MCID in ODI were 48.6% lower across groups (OR: 0.514 [.280, .945], p=.032). Indications of x-ray malalignment were 93.0% less likely to reach MCID (OR: 0.071, [.006, .866], p=.038). Similarly, implant failure negatively impacted rates of MCID (40% vs. 15.2%, p=.029). Those with PJK had 57% lower odds of MCID (33% vs 54%, OR: .43, [0.2, 0.9] p= 0.023), further negated by major malalignment (OR: 0.05, [.07, .97], p=.02). Indications of pseudarthrosis, thoracic decompensation, implant malposition were not significant. Major sepsis had lower rates of MCID compared to minor (6.4% vs. 21.2%), and early onset infection improved compared to late (OR: 1.43, [1.17, 2.98], p<.001). In the early follow-up period, the Mech group has significantly worse SRS Pain and Mental Health scores compared to other groups (1-year: Mech 1.56 vs Infx 0.83 vs SI Pain 0.72, p<0.001; 2-year: 1.88 vs 0.71 vs 0.76, p=0.034). Complication rates increased with the number of revisions and with mechanical indication (all p<.05). At 5 years, patient satisfaction was significantly more likely to improve compared to early follow-up (OR: 1.22, p=.011), along with improved pain score, in Mech group (0.89 vs 0.49 vs 0.56, p=.081). CONCLUSIONS:This study focused on the impact of revision as it varies with etiology and time of occurrence postoperatively. Compared to other etiologies, revision surgery due to mechanical complications had less radiographic improvement and worsening patient-reported scores in the early postoperative period despite stabilization at 5 years. The depth of impact of mechanical complication, particularly with the addition of malalignment, merits greater focus during surgical planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the impact of prior cervical constructs on upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) selection and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing thoracolumbar deformity correction. BACKGROUND:Surgical planning for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients involves consideration of spinal alignment and existing fusion constructs. METHODS:ASD patients with (ANTERIOR or POSTERIOR) and without (NONE) prior cervical fusion who underwent thoracolumbar fusion were included. Demographics, radiographic alignment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on POSTERIOR patients to identify parameters predictive of UIV choice and to evaluate postoperative outcomes impacted by UIV selection. RESULTS:Among 542 patients, with 446 NONE, 72 ANTERIOR, and 24 POSTERIOR patients, mean age was 64.4 years and 432 (80%) were female. Cervical fusion patients had worse preoperative cervical and lumbosacral deformity, and PROMs (P<0.05). In the POSTERIOR cohort, preoperative LIV was frequently below the cervicothoracic junction (54%) and uncommonly (13%) connected to the thoracolumbar UIV. Multivariate analyses revealed that higher preoperative cervical SVA (coeff=-0.22, 95%CI=-0.43--0.01, P=0.038) and C2SPi (coeff=-0.72, 95%CI=-1.36--0.07, P=0.031), and lower preoperative thoracic kyphosis (coeff=0.14, 95%CI=0.01-0.28, P=0.040) and thoracolumbar lordosis (coeff=0.22, 95%CI=0.10-0.33, P=0.001) were predictive of cranial UIV. Two-year postoperatively, cervical patients continued to have worse cervical deformity and PROMs (P<0.05) but had comparable postoperative complications. Choice of thoracolumbar UIV below or above T6, as well as the number of unfused levels between constructs, did not affect patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients who underwent thoracolumbar deformity correction, prior cervical fusion was associated with more severe spinopelvic deformity and PROMs preoperatively. The choice of thoracolumbar UIV was strongly predicted by their baseline cervical and thoracolumbar alignment. Despite their poor preoperative condition, these patients still experienced significant improvements in their thoracolumbar alignment and PROMs after surgery, irrespective of UIV selection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

BACKGROUND:Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) has not shown superior benefit overall in cost-effectiveness during adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective PURPOSE: Generate a risk score for pseudarthrosis to inform the utilization of rhBMP-2, balancing costs against quality of life and complications. METHODS:ASD patients with 3-year data were included. Quality of life gained was calculated from ODI to SF-6D and translated to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost was calculated using the PearlDiver database and CMS definitions for complications and comorbidities. Established weights were generated for predictive variables via logistic regression to yield a predictive risk score for pseudarthrosis that accounted for frailty, diabetes, depression, ASA grade, thoracolumbar kyphosis and three-column osteotomy use. Risk score categories, established via conditional inference tree (CIT)-derived thresholds were tested for cost-utility of rhBMP-2 usage, controlling for age, prior fusion, and baseline deformity and disability. RESULTS:64% of ASD patients received rhBMP-2 (308/481). There were 17 (3.5%) patients that developed pseudarthrosis. rhBMP-2 use overall did not lower pseudarthrosis rates (OR: 0.5, [0.2-1.3]). Pseudarthrosis rates for each risk category were: No Risk (NoR) 0%; Low-Risk (LowR) 1.6%; Moderate Risk (ModR) 9.3%; High-Risk (HighR) 24.3%. Patients receiving rhBMP-2 had similar QALYs overall to those that did not (0.163 vs. 0.171, p = .65). rhBMP-2 usage had worse cost-utility in the LowR cohort (p < .001). In ModR patients, rhBMP-2 usage had equivocal cost-utility ($53,398 vs. $61,581, p = .232). In the HighR cohort, the cost-utility was reduced via rhBMP-2 usage ($98,328 vs. $211,091, p < .001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study shows rhBMP-2 demonstrates effective cost-utility for individuals at high risk for developing pseudarthrosis. The generated score can aid spine surgeons in the assessment of risk and enhance justification for the strategic use of rhBMP-2 in the appropriate clinical contexts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the variability in intraoperative fluid management during adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, and analyze the association with complications, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and length of hospital stay (LOS). METHODS:Multicenter comparative cohort study. Patients ≥ 18 years old and with ASD were included. Intraoperative intravenous (IV) fluid data were collected including: crystalloids, colloids, crystalloid/colloid ratio (C/C), total IV fluid (tIVF, ml), normalized total IV fluid (nIVF, ml/kg/h), input/output ratio (IOR), input-output difference (IOD), and normalized input-output difference (nIOD, ml/kg/h). Data from different centers were compared for variability analysis, and fluid parameters were analyzed for possible associations with the outcomes. RESULTS:Seven hundred ninety-eight patients with a median age of 65.2 were included. Among different surgical centers, tIVF, nIVF, and C/C showed significant variation (p < 0.001 for each) with differences of 4.8-fold, 3.7-fold, and 4.9-fold, respectively. Two hundred ninety-two (36.6%) patients experienced at least one in-hospital complication, and ninety-two (11.5%) were IV fluid related. Univariate analysis showed significant relations for: LOS and tIVF (ρ = 0.221, p < 0.001), IOD (ρ = 0.115, p = 0.001) and IOR (ρ = -0.138, p < 0.001); IV fluid-related complications and tIVF (p = 0.049); ICU stay and tIVF, nIVF, IOD and nIOD (p < 0.001 each); extended ICU stay and tIVF (p < 0.001), nIVF (p = 0.010) and IOD (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis controlling for confounders showed significant relations for: LOS and tIVF (p < 0.001) and nIVF (p = 0.003); ICU stay and IOR (p = 0.002), extended ICU stay and tIVF (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Significant variability and lack of standardization in intraoperative IV fluid management exists between different surgical centers. Excessive fluid administration was found to be correlated with negative outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.