Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Robotic-assisted spine surgery (RASS) has increased in prevalence over recent years, and while much work has been done to analyze differences in outcomes when compared to the freehand technique, little has been done to characterize the potential pitfalls associated with using robotics. This study's goal was to leverage expert opinion to develop a classification system of potential sources of error that may be encountered when using robotics in spine surgery. This not only provides practitioners, particularly those in the early stages of robotic adoption, with insight into possible sources of error but also provides the community at large with a more standardized language through which to communicate. METHODS:The Delphi method, which is a validated system of developing consensus, was utilized. The method employed an iterative presentation of classification categories that were then edited, removed, or elaborated upon during several rounds of discussion. Voting took place to accept or reject the individual classification categories with consensus defined as ≥ 80% agreement. RESULTS:After a three-round iterative survey and video conference Delphi process, followed by an in-person meeting at the Safety in Spine Surgery Summit, consensus was achieved on a classification system that includes four key types of potential sources of error in RASS as well as a list of the most commonly identified sources within each category. Initial sources of error that were considered included: cannula skidding/skive, penetration, screw misplacement, registration failure, and frame shift. After completion of the Delphi process, the final classification included four major types of pitfalls including: Reference/Navigation, Patient Factors, Technique, and Equipment Factors (available at https://safetyinspinesurgery.com/ ). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This work provides expert insight into potential sources of error in the setting of robotic spine surgery. The working group established four discrete categories while providing a standardized language to unify communication.

BACKGROUND:Changing from standing to sitting positions requires rotation of the femur from an almost vertical plane to the horizontal plane. Osteoarthritis of the hip limits hip extension, resulting in less ability to recruit spinopelvic tilt (SPT) while standing and requiring increased SPT while sitting to compensate for the loss of hip range of motion. To date, the effect of total hip arthroplasty (THA) on spinopelvic sitting and standing mechanics has not been reported, particularly in the setting of patients with coexistent sagittal plane spinal deformity. METHODS:A retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years of age undergoing unilateral THA for hip osteoarthritis with sitting and standing radiographs made before and after THA. Alignment was analyzed at baseline and follow-up after THA in both standing and sitting positions in a relaxed posture with the fingers resting on top of the clavicles. Patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of sagittal plane deformity preoperatively into 3 groups: no sagittal plane deformity (normal), thoracolumbar (TL) deformity (pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis [PI-LL] mismatch > 10° and/or T1-pelvic angle [TPA] > 20°), or apparent deformity (PI-LL ≤ 10° and TPA ≤ 20°, but sagittal vertical axis [SVA] > 50 mm). RESULTS:In this study, 192 patients were assessed: 64 had TL deformity, 39 had apparent deformity, and 89 had normal alignment. Overall, patients demonstrated a reduction in standing SVA (45 to 34.1 mm; p < 0.001) and an increase in SPT (14.6° to 15.7°; p = 0.03) after THA. There was a greater change in standing SVA (p < 0.001) among patients with apparent deformity (-29.0 mm) compared with patients with normal alignment (0.9 mm) and patients with TL deformity (-16.3 mm). Those with apparent deformity also experienced the greatest difference (p = 0.03) in postural SPT change (moving from standing to sitting) (-10.1°) from before to after THA when compared with those with normal alignment (-3.6°) and TL deformity (-1.2°). The difference in postural SVA change from before to after THA was also greatest (p < 0.001) in those with apparent deformity (32.1 mm) compared with those with normal alignment (6.5 mm) and TL deformity (17.3 mm). CONCLUSIONS:Postural changes in spinopelvic alignment vary after THA depending on the presence of TL deformity or apparent deformity due to hip flexion contracture. Patients with apparent deformity had larger changes in standing and sitting alignment than patients with TL deformity or patients with normal alignment. The assessment of global sagittal alignment findings can be used to predict the likelihood of improvement in sagittal alignment after THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To investigate the cost-effectiveness and impact of prophylactic techniques on the development of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) in the context of postoperative alignment. METHODS:Adult spinal deformity patients with fusion to pelvis and 2-year data were included. Patients receiving PJK prophylaxis (hook, tether, cement, minimally-invasive surgery approach) were compared to those who did not. These cohorts were further stratified into "Matched" and "Unmatched" groups based on achievement of age-adjusted alignment criteria. Costs were calculated using the Diagnosis-Related Group costs accounting for PJK prophylaxis, postoperative complications, outpatient health care encounters, revisions, and medical-related readmissions. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated using Short Form-36 converted to Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) and used an annual 3% discount rate. Multivariate analysis controlling for age, sex, levels fused, and baseline deformity severity assessed outcomes of developing PJK/PJF if matched and/or with use of PJK prophylaxis. RESULTS:A total of 738 adult spinal deformity patients met inclusion criteria (age: 63.9 ± 9.9, body mass index: 28.5 ± 5.7, Charlson comorbidity index: 2.0 ± 1.7). Multivariate analysis revealed patients corrected to age-adjusted criteria postoperatively had lower rates of developing PJK or PJF (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, [0.2-0.8]; P = .011) with the use of prophylaxis. Among those unmatched in T1 pelvic angle, pelvic incidence lumbar lordosis mismatch, and pelvic tilt, prophylaxis reduced the likelihood of developing PJK (OR: 0.5, [0.3-0.9]; P = .023) and PJF (OR: 0.1, [0.03-0.5]; P = .004). Analysis of covariance analysis revealed patients matched in age-adjusted alignment had better cost-utility at 2 years compared with those without prophylaxis ($361 539.25 vs $419 919.43; P < .001). Patients unmatched in age-adjusted criteria also generated better cost ($88 348.61 vs $101 318.07; P = .005) and cost-utility ($450 190.80 vs $564 108.86; P < .001) with use of prophylaxis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite additional surgical cost, the optimization of radiographic realignment in conjunction with prophylaxis of the proximal junction appeared to be a more cost-effective strategy, primarily because of the minimization of reoperations secondary to mechanical failure. Even among those not achieving optimal alignment, junctional prophylactic measures were shown to improve cost efficiency.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of retrospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:To determine the effects of preoperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use on estimated blood loss (EBL) and postoperative drain output in TLIF procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Current standards of care recommend patients prescribed NSAIDs for chronic lower back pain discontinue NSAIDs at least 1 week before spine fusion surgery. The literature surrounding the effects of preoperative NSAID use is unclear, however, with dissonant findings regarding postoperative blood loss and complications. METHODS:A retrospective case review was performed on 429 cases of 1-level or 2-level TLIF, with patient NSAID use recorded within 3 days of surgery, at a single institution. Linear and logistic regressions were used to assess associations between NSAID use, patient and surgical characteristics, EBL, and drain output. RESULTS:NSAID use was significantly positively associated with drain output (P=0.03), with an approximate increase of 21±9.7 mL/day but no significant association with any postoperative complications (P=0.77). Drain output also had significant, independent positive associations with patient age (P=0.007), male sex (P<0.001), and a number of levels fused (P<0.001), and significant negative associations with robot-assisted (P<0.001) and minimally invasive (P=0.04) procedures. No significant association was detected between NSAID use and EBL (P=0.21), though EBL had significant positive associations with operative time (P<0.001) and levels fused (P<0.001), and multiple NSAIDs had a significant positive association with EBL (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:NSAID use had a statistically significant, but small, effect on drain output and no detectable effect on postoperative complications within 3 days of TLIF procedures, suggesting most patients can safely continue NSAID use up until their date of surgery. Future studies should further delineate the effects of preoperative NSAID use, such that a more refined risk profile could be developed from patient and surgical characteristics and NSAID use information.

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Clinical trials have studied the effects of curve magnitude and flexibility, age, and skeletal immaturity on the outcomes of VBT. No studies have assessed the effect of Lenke curve type on the outcomes of VBT. This study compares outcomes in patients who underwent VBT with Lenke type 1, 3, 5, and 6 curves. METHODS:Single center retrospective review of patients undergoing mini-open thoracoscopic-assisted two row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) for the correction of AIS with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Patients were grouped by Lenke type, which yielded 4 groups; types 1, 3, 5, or 6. Analysis included preoperative demographic parameters, as well as radiographic and clinical outcome measures. RESULTS:156 2RVBT (Lenke 1, N = 61; Lenke 3, N = 35; Lenke 5, N = 37; Lenke 6, N = 23) patients met inclusion criteria. The mean preoperative apex Cobb angle in the Lenke type 1, 3, 5, and 6 groups were 50.2 ± 9.1, 50.5 ± 10.1, 45.0 ± 8.6, and 49.0 ± 10.8, respectively. This corrected to 21.2 ± 10.2, 19.2 ± 8.5, 13.6 ± 7.2, 18.5 ± 8.3 in Lenke type 1, 3, 5, and 6 groups, respectively, demonstrating that Lenke type 5 saw greatest correction following 2RVBT. With regards to revision recommendation following tether breakage, Lenke type 3 curves were most frequently indicated for fusion, whereas Lenke type 1 curves were most frequently not indicated for revision surgery. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Lenke type 5 curves are the most amenable to correction via 2RVBT, as evident by their lower post-operative apex Cobb angles and lowest rate of recommendation for revision to posterior spinal fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:To develop parameter thresholds obtainable from cervical radiographs that correlate with concomitant thoracolumbar malalignment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:T1 slope (T1S) is typically discussed in the context of cervical deformity and correlated with health-related quality of life outcomes. Prior research suggests that T1S is related to global alignment; however, a definition for "high" T1S has not been established. Most patients undergoing cervical surgery do not undergo full-spine imaging; therefore, obtaining a parameter associated with thoracolumbar malalignment from cervical radiographs would be beneficial. METHODS:A database of preoperative adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients was analyzed. Measures obtained from standing lateral radiographs included T1S, thoracic kyphosis (TK), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), T1-pelvic angle (TPA), pelvic tilt (PT), and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL). Decision tree analysis was then used to determine the T1S corresponding to published thresholds for high TK (40 degrees), SVA (40 mm), TPA (25 degrees), and PT (25 degrees). Alignment between high and normal T1S patients was compared. RESULTS:Two hundred twenty-six preoperative patients were included (mean: 58±16 y 62%F). Larger T1S was correlated with greater SVA (r=0.365), TPA (r=0.302), TK (r=0.606), and PT (r=0.230) (all P<0.001). Decision tree analysis yielded a threshold of 30 degrees for high T1S, which 50% of patients had. Compared with patients with T1S <30 degrees, those with T1S >30 degrees had higher TK (41.5 vs. 25.8 degrees), SVA (78.7 vs. 33.7 mm), TPA (27.6 vs. 18.3 degrees), and PT (26.3 vs. 20.8 degrees), and PI-LL (18.2 vs. 11.7 degrees) (all P<0.05). Seventy-nine percent of patients with high T1S had high TK (T1S <30=13%), 69% had high SVA (T1S <30=38%), 66% had high TPA (T1S <30=37%), 60% had PT >25 degrees (T1S <30=42%), and 47% had PI-LL >20 degrees (T1S <30=34%) (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Higher T1S was associated with worse global alignment. T1S was most strongly associated with TK. A T1S=30 degrees corresponded to high TK, SVA, TPA, and PT thresholds. Therefore, surgeons should consider obtaining full-spine radiographs if a T1S >30 degrees is present on cervical imaging.

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:Single-center retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:To compare the correction of fractional curve and L5 tilt in 2RVBT versus PSF with LIV in the lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Vertebral body tethering, an AIS fusion-alternative, avoids rigid constructs, allowing for lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection. Single-tether constructs break, but mini-open thoracoscopic assistant double-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) reduces this. Limited comparative studies exist with posterior spinal fusion (PSF). METHODS:Retrospective analysis of AIS correction surgeries with lumbar LIV using preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative imaging. Patients were divided into 2RVBT or PSF groups. Data included age, Riser, UIV, LIV, instrumented levels, and revision rates. Radiographic analyses included preoperative and postoperative main curve Cobb (MCC), secondary curve Cobb (SCC), fractional curve Cobb (FCC), and L5 tilt. RESULTS:Ninety-nine patients participated (49 in 2RVBT, 50 in PSF). Preoperatively, secondary CC differed significantly (2RVBT: 44.6±10.4 degrees vs. PSF: 39.5±11.8 degrees, P=0.026), but not L5 tilt, MCC, or FCC. Postoperatively, MCC (2RVBT: 25.7±12.3 degrees vs. PSF: 19.5±7.4 degrees, P=0.003) and SCC (2RVBT: 18.0±8.4 degrees vs. PSF: 14.5±6.6 degrees, P=0.012) varied. Preoperative to postoperative changes in MCC (2RVBT: -32.0±11.3 degrees vs. PSF: -37.2±13.3 degrees, P=0.044) and L5 tilt (-13.8±9.0 degrees vs. PSF: -8.1±6.8 degrees, P=0.001) differed. Revision rates were similar (2RVBT: 2.0%, PSF: 4.0%, P=0.57). In 2RVBT, 3 tethers broke, 1 revision occurred for a broken tether, and 1 pleural effusion needed thoracocentesis. In PSF, 1 superficial infection needed surgery, and 1 revision was for add-on phenomenon. After PSM for Lenke classification, 54 patients remained (27 in each group). At 2 years, 2RVBT showed less MCC correction (-30.8±11.8 degrees vs. -38.9±11.9 degrees, P=0.017), but greater L5 tilt correction (-14.6±10.0 degrees vs. -7.5±6.0 degrees, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:This study with a minimum 2-year radiographic follow-up demonstrates that 2RVBT results in greater L5 tilt correction when compared with posterior spinal fusion after PSM for Lenke classification and similar rates of revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.