Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Sagittal alignment measured on standing radiography remains a fundamental component of surgical planning for adult spinal deformity (ASD). However, the relationship between classic sagittal alignment parameters and objective metrics, such as walking time (WT) and grip strength (GS), remains unknown. The objective of this work was to determine if ASD patients with worse baseline sagittal malalignment have worse objective physical metrics and if those metrics have a stronger relationship to patient-reported outcome metrics (PROMs) than standing alignment. METHODS:The authors conducted a retrospective review of a multicenter ASD cohort. ASD patients underwent baseline testing with the timed up-and-go 6-m walk test (seconds) and for GS (pounds). Baseline PROMs were surveyed, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22r, and Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) scores. Standard spinopelvic measurements were obtained (sagittal vertical axis [SVA], pelvic tilt [PT], and mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis [PI-LL], and SRS-Schwab ASD classification). Univariate and multivariable linear regression modeling was performed to interrogate associations between objective physical metrics, sagittal parameters, and PROMs. RESULTS:In total, 494 patients were included, with mean ± SD age 61 ± 14 years, and 68% were female. Average WT was 11.2 ± 6.1 seconds and average GS was 56.6 ± 24.9 lbs. With increasing PT, PI-LL, and SVA quartiles, WT significantly increased (p < 0.05). SRS-Schwab type N patients demonstrated a significantly longer average WT (12.5 ± 6.2 seconds), and type T patients had a significantly shorter WT time (7.9 ± 2.7 seconds, p = 0.03). With increasing PT quartiles, GS significantly decreased (p < 0.05). SRS-Schwab type T patients had a significantly higher average GS (68.8 ± 27.8 lbs), and type L patients had a significantly lower average GS (51.6 ± 20.4 lbs, p = 0.03). In the frailty-adjusted multivariable linear regression analyses, WT was more strongly associated with PROMs than sagittal parameters. GS was more strongly associated with ODI and PROMIS Physical Function scores. CONCLUSIONS:The authors observed that increasing baseline sagittal malalignment is associated with slower WT, and possibly weaker GS, in ASD patients. WT has a stronger relationship to PROMs than standing alignment parameters. Objective physical metrics likely offer added value to standard spinopelvic measurements in ASD evaluation and surgical planning.

OBJECTIVE:Recent debate has arisen between whether to use a three-column osteotomy (3CO) or multilevel low-grade (MLG) techniques to treat severe sagittal malalignment in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of 3CO and MLG techniques performed in corrective surgeries for ASD. METHODS:ASD patients who had a baseline PI-LL > 30° and 2-year follow-up data were included. Patients underwent either 3CO or MLG (thoracolumbar posterior column osteotomies at ≥ 3 levels or anterior lumbar interbody fusion at ≥ 3 levels with no 3CO). The segmental utility ratio was used to assess relative segmental correction (segmental correction divided by overall correction in lordosis divided by the number of thoracolumbar interventions [interbody fusion, thoracolumbar posterior column osteotomies, and 3CO]). The paired t-test was used to assess lordotic distribution by differences in lordosis between adjacent lumbar disc spaces (e.g., L1-2 to L2-3). Multivariate analysis, controlling for age, sex, BMI, osteoporosis, baseline pelvic incidence, and T1 pelvic angle, was used to evaluate the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between the groups. RESULTS:A total of 93 patients were included, 53% of whom underwent MLG and 47% of whom underwent 3CO. The MLG group had a lower BMI (p < 0.05). MLG patients received fewer previous fusions than 3CO patients (31% vs 80%, p < 0.001). MLG patients had 24% less blood loss but a 22% longer operative time (565 vs 419 minutes, p = 0.008). Using adjusted analysis, the 3CO group had greater segmental and relative correction at each level (segmental utility ratio mean 69% for 3CO vs 23% for MLG, p < 0.001). However, the 3CO group had lordotic differences between two adjacent lumbar disc pairs (range -0.5° to 9.0°, p = 0.009), while MLG was more harmonious (range 2.2°-6.5°, p > 0.4). MLG patients were more likely to undergo realignment to age-adjusted standards (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.2-46.4; p = 0.033). MLG patients were less likely to develop neurological complications or undergo reoperation (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-0.9; p = 0.041). Adjusted analysis revealed that MLG patients more often met a substantial clinical benefit in the Oswestry Disability Index score (OR 5.3, 95% CI 1.1-26.8; p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS:MLG techniques showed better utility in lumbar distribution and age-adjusted global correction while minimizing neurological complications and reoperation rates by 2 years postoperatively. In selected instances, these techniques may offer the spine deformity surgeon a safer alternative when correcting severe adult spinal deformity.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Among adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients, heterogeneity in patient pathology, surgical expectations, baseline impairments, and frailty complicates comparisons in clinical outcomes and research. This study aims to qualitatively segment ASD patients using machine learning-based clustering on a large, multicenter, prospectively gathered ASD cohort. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To qualitatively segment adult spinal deformity patients using machine learning-based clustering on a large, multicenter, prospectively gathered cohort. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Machine learning algorithm using patients from a prospective multicenter study and a validation cohort from a retrospective single center, single surgeon cohort with complete 2-year follow up. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:About 805 ASD patients; 563 patients from a prospective multicenter study and 242 from a single center to be used as a validation cohort. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:To validate and extend the Ames-ISSG/ESSG classification using machine learning-based clustering analysis on a large, complex, multicenter, prospectively gathered ASD cohort. METHODS:We analyzed a training cohort of 563 ASD patients from a prospective multicenter study and a validation cohort of 242 ASD patients from a retrospective single center/surgeon cohort with complete two-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinical/radiographic follow-up. Using k-means clustering, a machine learning algorithm, we clustered patients based on baseline PROs, Edmonton frailty, age, surgical history, and overall health. Baseline differences in clusters identified using the training cohort were assessed using Chi-Squared and ANOVA with pairwise comparisons. To evaluate the classification system's ability to discern postoperative trajectories, a second machine learning algorithm assigned the single-center/surgeon patients to the same 4 clusters, and we compared the clusters' two-year PROs and clinical outcomes. RESULTS:K-means clustering revealed four distinct phenotypes from the multicenter training cohort based on age, frailty, and mental health: Old/Frail/Content (OFC, 27.7%), Old/Frail/Distressed (OFD, 33.2%), Old/Resilient/Content (ORC, 27.2%), and Young/Resilient/Content (YRC, 11.9%). OFC and OFD clusters had the highest frailty scores (OFC: 3.76, OFD: 4.72) and a higher proportion of patients with prior thoracolumbar fusion (OFC: 47.4%, OFD: 49.2%). ORC and YRC clusters exhibited lower frailty scores and fewest patients with prior thoracolumbar procedures (ORC: 2.10, 36.6%; YRC: 0.84, 19.4%). OFC had 69.9% of patients with global sagittal deformity and the highest T1PA (29.0), while YRC had 70.2% exhibiting coronal deformity, the highest mean coronal Cobb Angle (54.0), and the lowest T1PA (11.9). OFD and ORC had similar alignment phenotypes with intermediate values for Coronal Cobb Angle (OFD: 33.7; ORC: 40.0) and T1PA (OFD: 24.9; ORC: 24.6) between OFC (worst sagittal alignment) and YRC (worst coronal alignment). In the single surgeon validation cohort, the OFC cluster experienced the greatest increase in SRS Function scores (1.34 points, 95%CI 1.01-1.67) compared to OFD (0.5 points, 95%CI 0.245-0.755), ORC (0.7 points, 95%CI 0.415-0.985), and YRC (0.24 points, 95%CI -0.024-0.504) clusters. OFD cluster patients improved the least over 2 years. Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the OFD cohort had significantly worse reoperation outcomes compared to other clusters (HR: 3.303, 95%CI: 1.085-8.390). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Machine-learning clustering found four different ASD patient qualitative phenotypes, defined by their age, frailty, physical functioning, and mental health upon presentation, which primarily determines their ability to improve their PROs following surgery. This reaffirms that these qualitative measures must be assessed in addition to the radiographic variables when counseling ASD patients regarding their expected surgical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the impact of evolving Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols on outcomes after cervical deformity (CD) surgery. BACKGROUND:ERAS can help accelerate patient recovery and assist hospitals in maximizing the incentives of bundled payment models while maintaining high-quality patient care. However, there remains a paucity of literature assessing how developments have impacted outcomes after adult CD surgery. METHODS:Patients with operative CD 18 years or older with pre-baseline and 2 years (2Y) postoperative data, who underwent ERAS protocols, were stratified by increasing implantation of ERAS components: (1) early (multimodal pain program), (2) intermediate (early protocol + paraspinal blocks, early ambulation), and (3) late (early/intermediate protocols + comprehensive prehabilitation). Differences in demographics, clinical outcomes, radiographic alignment targets, perioperative factors, and complication rates were assessed through Bonferroni-adjusted means comparison analysis. RESULTS:A total of 131 patients were included (59.4 ± 11.7 y, 45% females, 28.8 ± 6.0 kg/m 2 ). Of these patients, 38.9% were considered "early," 36.6% were "intermediate," and 24.4% were "late." Perioperatively, rates of intraoperative complications were lower in the late group ( P = 0.036). Postoperatively, discharge disposition differed significantly between cohorts, with late patients more likely to be discharged to home versus early or intermediate cohorts [χ 2 (2) = 37.973, P < 0.001]. In terms of postoperative disability recovery, intermediate and late patients demonstrated incrementally improved 6 W modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores ( P = 0.004), and late patients maintained significantly higher mean Euro-QOL 5-Dimension Questionnaire and modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores by 1 year ( P < 0.001, P = 0.026). By 2Y, cohorts demonstrated incrementally increasing SWAL-QOL scores (all domains P < 0.028) domain scores versus early or intermediate cohorts. By 2Y, incrementally decreasing reoperation was observed in early versus intermediate versus late cohorts ( P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS:The present study demonstrates that patients enrolled in an evolving ERAS program demonstrate incremental improvement in preoperative optimization and candidate selection, greater likelihood of discharge to home, decreased postoperative disability and dysphasia burden, and decreased likelihood of intraoperative complications and reoperation rates.

OBJECTIVE:To assess the financial impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols and cost-effectiveness in cervical deformity corrective surgery. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of prospective CD database. BACKGROUND:Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) can help accelerate patient recovery and assist hospitals in maximizing the incentives of bundled payment models while maintaining high-quality patient care. However, the economic benefit of ERAS protocols, nor the heterogeneous components that make up such protocols, has not been established. METHODS:Operative CD patients ≥18 y with complete pre-(BL) and up to 2-year(2Y) postop radiographic/HRQL data were stratified by enrollment in Standard-of-Care ERAS beginning in 2020. Differences in demographics, clinical outcomes, radiographic alignment targets, perioperative factors, and complication rates were assessed through means comparison analysis. Costs were calculated using PearlDiver database estimates from Medicare pay scales. QALY was calculated using NDI mapped to SF6D using validated methodology with a 3% discount rate to account for a residual decline in life expectancy. RESULTS:In all, 127 patients were included (59.07±11.16 y, 54% female, 29.08±6.43 kg/m 2 ) in the analysis. Of these patients, 54 (20.0%) received the ERAS protocol. Per cost analysis, ERAS+ patients reported a lower mean total 2Y cost of 35049 USD compared with ERAS- patients at 37553 ( P <0.001). Furthermore, ERAS+ patients demonstrated lower cost of reoperation by 2Y ( P <0.001). Controlling for age, surgical invasiveness, and deformity per BL TS-CL, ERAS+ patients below 70 years old were significantly more likely to achieve a cost-effective outcome by 2Y compared with their ERAS- counterparts (OR: 1.011 [1.001-1.999, P =0.048]. CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing ERAS protocols experience improved cost-effectiveness and reduced total cost by 2Y post-operatively. Due to the potential economic benefit of ERAS for patients incorporation of ERAS into practice for eligible patients should be considered.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A retrospective cohort review. OBJECTIVE:To develop a scoring system for predicting increased risk of postoperative complications in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery based on baseline nutritional and metabolic factors. BACKGROUND:Endocrine and metabolic conditions have been shown to adversely influence patient outcomes and may increase the likelihood of postoperative complications. The impact of these conditions has not been effectively evaluated in patients undergoing ASD surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:ASD patients 18 years or above with baseline and two-year data were included. An internally cross-validated weighted equation using preoperative laboratory and comorbidity data correlating to increased perioperative complications was developed via Poisson regression. Body mass index (BMI) categorization (normal, over/underweight, and obese) and diabetes classification (normal, prediabetic, and diabetic) were used per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Diabetes Associates parameters. A novel ASD-specific nutritional and metabolic burden score (ASD-NMBS) was calculated via Beta-Sullivan adjustment, and Conditional Inference Tree determined the score threshold for experiencing ≥1 complication. Cohorts were stratified into low-risk and high-risk groups for comparison. Logistic regression assessed correlations between increasing burden score and complications. RESULTS:Two hundred one ASD patients were included (mean age: 58.60±15.4, sex: 48% female, BMI: 29.95±14.31, Charlson Comorbidity Index: 3.75±2.40). Significant factors were determined to be age (+1/yr), hypertension (+18), peripheral vascular disease (+37), smoking status (+21), anemia (+1), VitD hydroxyl (+1/ng/mL), BMI (+13/cat), and diabetes (+4/cat) (model: P <0.001, area under the curve: 92.9%). Conditional Inference Tree determined scores above 175 correlated with ≥1 post-op complication ( P <0.001). Furthermore, HIGH patients reported higher rates of postoperative cardiac complications ( P =0.045) and were more likely to require reoperation ( P =0.024) compared with low patients. CONCLUSIONS:The development of a validated novel nutritional and metabolic burden score (ASD-NMBS) demonstrated that patients with higher scores are at greater risk of increased postoperative complications and course. As such, surgeons should consider the reduction of nutritional and metabolic burden preoperatively to enhance outcomes and reduce complications in ASD patients.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To develop a simplified, modified frailty index for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients dependent on objective clinical factors. METHODS:value derived from multivariate forward stepwise regression were including in the modified ASD-FI (clin-ASD-FI). Factors included in the clin-ASD-FI were regressed against mortality, extended length of hospital stay (LOS, > 8 days), revisions, major complications and weights for the clin-ASD-FI were calculated via Beta/Sullivan. Total clin-ASD-FI score was created with a score from 0 to 1. Linear regression correlated clin-ASD-FI with ASD-FI scores and published cutoffs for the ASD-FI were used to create the new frailty cutoffs: not frail (NF: < 0.11), frail (F: 0.11-0.21) and severely frail (SF: > 0.21). Binary logistic regression assessed odds of complication or reop for frail patients. RESULTS:of 0.681, and significant factors were: < 18.5 or > 30 BMI (weight: 0.0625 out of 1), cardiac disease (0.125), disability employment status (0.3125), diabetes mellitus (0.0625), hypertension (0.0625), osteoporosis (0.125), blood clot (0.1875), and bowel incontinence (0.0625). These factors calculated the score from 0 to 1, with a mean cohort score of 0.13 ± 0.14. Breakdown by clin-ASD-FI score: 51.8% NF, 28.1% F, 20.2% SF. Increasing frailty severity was associated with longer LOS (NF: 7.0, F: 8.3, SF: 9.2 days; P < 0.001). Frailty independently predicted occurrence of any complication (OR: 9.357 [2.20-39.76], P = 0.002) and reop (OR: 2.79 [0.662-11.72], P = 0.162). CONCLUSIONS:Utilizing an existing ASD frailty index, we proposed a modified version eliminating the patient-reported components. This index is a true assessment of physiologic status, and represents a superior risk factor assessment compared to other tools for both primary and revision spinal deformity surgery as a result of its immutability with surgery, lack of subjectivity, and ease of use.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols on peri-operative course in adult cervical deformity (ACD) corrective surgery. METHODS:Patients ≥18 yrs with complete pre-(BL) and up to 2-year (2Y) radiographic and clinical outcome data were stratified by enrollment in an ERAS protocol that commenced in 2020. Differences in demographics, clinical outcomes, radiographic alignment targets, peri-operative factors and complication rates were assessed via means comparison analysis. Logistic regression analysed differences while controlling for baseline disability and deformity. RESULTS:= .025). CONCLUSIONS:Enhanced recovery after surgery programs in ACD surgery demonstrate significant benefit in terms of peri-operative outcomes for patients.