Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:This study tests the hypothesis that the elimination of lower limb compensation in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) will significantly increase the magnitude of sagittal malalignment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:ASD affects a significant proportion of the elderly population, impairing functional sagittal alignment and inhibiting the overall quality of life. To counteract these effects, patients with ASD use their spine, pelvis, and lower limbs to create a compensatory posture that allows for standing and mobility. However, the degree to which each of the hips, knees, and ankles contributes to these compensatory mechanisms has yet to be determined. METHODS:Patients undergoing corrective surgery for ASD were included if they met at least one of the following criteria: complex surgical procedure, geriatric deformity surgery, or severe radiographic deformity. Preoperative full-body x-rays were evaluated, and age and pelvic incidence -adjusted normative values were used to model spine alignment based upon three positions: compensated (all lower extremity compensatory mechanisms maintained), partially compensated (removal of ankle dorsiflexion and knee flexion, with maintained hip extension), and uncompensated (ankle, knee, and hip compensation set to the age and pelvic incidence norms). RESULTS:A total of 288 patients were included (mean age 60 yr, 70.5% females). As the model transitioned from the compensated to uncompensated position, the initial posterior translation of the pelvis decreased significantly to an anterior translation versus the ankle (P.Shift: 30 to -7.6 mm). This was associated with a decrease in pelvic retroversion (pelvic tilt: 24.1-16.1), hip extension (SFA: 203-200), knee flexion (knee angle: 5.5-0.4), and ankle dorsiflexion (ankle angle: 5.3-3.7). As a result, the anterior malalignment of the trunk significantly increased: sagittal vertical axis (65-120 mm) and G-SVA (C7-ankle from 36 to 127 mm). CONCLUSIONS:Removal of lower limbs compensation revealed an unsustainable truncal malalignment with two-fold greater SVA.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected multicenter database. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to assess the radiographic and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impact of a short-term (<1 y) return to the operating room (OR) after adult cervical spine deformity (ACSD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Returns to the OR within a year of ACSD correction can be particularly devastating to these vulnerable hosts as they often involve compromise of the soft tissue envelope, neurological deficits, or hardware failure. This work sought to assess the impact of a short-term reoperation on 1-year radiographic and HRQoL outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients operated on from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2019, with at least 1 year of follow-up were included. The primary outcome was a short-term return to the OR. Variables of interest included patient demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index, HRQoL measured with the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association), Neck Disability Index, and EuroQuol-5D Visual Analog Scale (EQ-5D VAS) and radiographic outcomes, including T1 slope, C2-C7 sagittal Cobb angle, T1 slope-Cobb angle, and cervical sagittal vertical axis. Comparisons between those who did versus did not require a 1-year reoperation were performed using paired t tests. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to estimate reoperation-free survival up to 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS:A total of 121 patients were included in this work (age: 61.9±10.1 yr, body mass index: 28.4±6.9, Charlson Comorbidity Index: 1.0±1.4, 62.8% female). A 1-year unplanned return to the OR was required for 28 (23.1%) patients, of whom 19 followed up for at least 1 year. Indications for a return to the OR were most commonly for neurological complications (5%), infectious/wound complications (5.8%), and junctional failure (6.6%) No differences in demographics, comorbidities, preoperative or 1-year postoperative HRQoL, or radiographic outcomes were seen between operative groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Reoperation <1 year after ACSD surgery did not influence 1-year radiographic outcomes or HRQoL.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE:Assess whether modifying spinal alignment goals to accommodate frailty considerations will decrease mechanical complications and maximize clinical outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:The Global Alignment and Proportion(GAP) score was developed to assist in reducing mechanical complications, but has had less success predicting such events in external validation. Higher frailty and many of its components have been linked to development of implant failure. Therefore, modifying the GAP score with frailty may strengthen its ability to predict mechanical complications. METHODS:We included 412 surgical ASD patients with two-year(2Y) follow-up. Frailty was quantified using the ASD modified Frailty Index(mASD-FI). Outcomes: proximal junctional kyphosis(PJK) and failure(PJF), major mechanical complications, and 'Best Clinical Outcome'(BCO), defined as ODI<15 and SRS-22 Total>4.5. Logistic regression analysis established a six-week score based on GAP score,frailty and ODI US-Norms. Logistic regression followed by conditional inference tree(CIT) analysis generated categorical thresholds. Multivariable logistic regression analysis controlling for confounders was used to assess the performance of the frailty modified GAP score. RESULTS:Baseline frailty categories: 57% Not Frail,30% frail,14% severely frail. Overall, 39% of patients developed PJK, 8% PJF, 21% mechanical complications, 22% underwent reoperation, and 15% met BCO. The modified ASD-FI demonstrated correlation with developing PJF, mechanical complications, undergoing reoperation, and meeting BCO at 2Y(all P<0.05). Regression analysis generated the following equation: Frailty-Adjusted Realignment Score(FAR Score) =0.49*mASD-FI + 0.38*GAP Score. Thresholds for the FAR score(0-13): Proportioned:<3.5,Moderately Disproportioned:3.5-7.5,Severely Disproportioned:>7.5. Multivariable logistic regression assessing FAR Score demonstrated associations with mechanical complications, reoperation, and meeting Best Clinical Outcome by two years(all P<0.05), whereas the original GAP score was only significant for reoperation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated adjusting alignment goals in adult spinal deformity surgery for a patient's baseline frailty status and disability may be useful in minimizing the risk of complications and adverse events, outperforming the original GAP score in terms of prognostic capacity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

OBJECTIVE:Management of adult spinal deformity (ASD) has increasingly favored operative intervention; however, the incidence of complications and reoperations is high, and patients may fail to achieve idealized postsurgical results. This study compared health-related quality of life (HRQOL) metrics between patients with suboptimal surgical outcomes and those who underwent nonoperative management as a proxy for the natural history (NH) of ASD. METHODS:ASD patients with 2-year data were included. Patients who were offered surgery but declined were considered nonoperative (i.e., NH) patients. Operative patients with suboptimal outcome (SOp)-defined as any reoperation, major complication, or ≥ 2 severe Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab modifiers at follow-up-were selected for comparison. Propensity score matching (PSM) on the basis of baseline age, deformity, SRS-22 Total, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score was used to match the groups. ANCOVA and stepwise logistic regression analysis were used to assess outcomes between groups at 2 years. RESULTS:In total, 441 patients were included (267 SOp and 174 NH patients). After PSM, 142 patients remained (71 SOp 71 and 71 NH patients). At baseline, the SOp and NH groups had similar demographic characteristics, HRQOL, and deformity (all p > 0.05). At 2 years, ANCOVA determined that NH patients had worse deformity as measured with sagittal vertical axis (36.7 mm vs 21.3 mm, p = 0.025), mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (11.9° vs 2.9°, p < 0.001), and pelvic tilt (PT) (23.1° vs 20.7°, p = 0.019). The adjusted regression analysis found that SOp patients had higher odds of reaching the minimal clinically important differences in Oswestry Disability Index score (OR [95% CI] 4.5 [1.7-11.5], p = 0.002), SRS-22 Activity (OR [95% CI] 3.2 [1.5-6.8], p = 0.002), SRS-22 Pain (OR [95% CI] 2.8 [1.4-5.9], p = 0.005), and SRS-22 Total (OR [95% CI] 11.0 [3.5-34.4], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Operative patients with SOp still experience greater improvements in deformity and HRQOL relative to the progressive radiographic and functional deterioration associated with the NH of ASD. The NH of nonoperative management should be accounted for when weighing the risks and benefits of operative intervention for ASD.

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to evaluate spinopelvic sagittal alignment and spinal compensatory changes in adult cervical kyphotic deformity. METHODS:A database composed of 13 US spine centers was retrospectively reviewed for adult patients who underwent cervical reconstruction with radiographic evidence of cervical kyphotic deformity: C2-7 sagittal vertical axis > 4 cm, chin-brow vertical angle > 25°, or cervical kyphosis (T1 slope [T1S] cervical lordosis [CL] > 15°) (n = 129). Sagittal parameters were evaluated preoperatively and in the early postoperative window (6 weeks to 6 months postoperatively) and compared with asymptomatic control patients. Adult cervical deformity patients were further stratified by degree of cervical kyphosis (severe kyphosis, C2-T3 Cobb angle ≤ -30°; moderate kyphosis, ≤ 0°; and minimal kyphosis, > 0°) and severity of sagittal malalignment (severe malalignment, sagittal vertical axis T3-S1 ≤ -60 mm; moderate malalignment, ≤ 20 mm; and minimal malalignment > 20 mm). RESULTS:Compared with asymptomatic control patients, cervical deformity was associated with increased C0-2 lordosis (32.9° vs 23.6°), T1S (33.5° vs 28.0°), thoracolumbar junction kyphosis (T10-L2 Cobb angle -7.0° vs -1.7°), and pelvic tilt (PT) (19.7° vs 15.9°) (p < 0.01). Cervicothoracic kyphosis was correlated with C0-2 lordosis (R = -0.57, p < 0.01) and lumbar lordosis (LL) (R = -0.20, p = 0.03). Cervical reconstruction resulted in decreased C0-2 lordosis, increased T1S, and increased thoracic and thoracolumbar junction kyphosis (p < 0.01). Patients with severe cervical kyphosis (n = 34) had greater C0-2 lordosis (p < 0.01) and postoperative reduction of C0-2 lordosis (p = 0.02) but no difference in PT. Severe cervical kyphosis was also associated with a greater increase in thoracic and thoracolumbar junction kyphosis postoperatively (p = 0.01). Patients with severe sagittal malalignment (n = 52) had decreased PT (p = 0.01) and increased LL (p < 0.01), as well as a greater postoperative reduction in LL (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Adult cervical deformity is associated with upper cervical hyperlordotic compensation and thoracic hypokyphosis. In the setting of increased kyphotic deformity and sagittal malalignment, thoracolumbar junction kyphosis and lumbar hyperlordosis develop to restore normal center of gravity. There was no consistent compensatory pelvic retroversion or anteversion among the adult cervical deformity patients in this cohort.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Complex surgery for adult spinal deformity has high rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Preoperative discussions of high-risk operative spine patients at a multidisciplinary conference may contribute to decreased rates of these adverse outcomes through appropriate patient selection and surgical plan optimization. With this goal, we implemented a high-risk case conference involving orthopedic and neurosurgery spine, anesthesia, intraoperative monitoring neurology, and neurological intensive care. METHODS:Included in this retrospective review were patients ≥ 18 years old meeting one of the following high-risk criteria: 8 + levels fused, osteoporosis with 4 + levels fused, three column osteotomy, anterior revision of the same lumbar level, or planned significant correction for severe myelopathy, scoliosis (> 75˚), or kyphosis (> 75˚). Patients were categorized as Before Conference (BC): surgery before 2/19/2019 or After Conference (AC): surgery after 2/19/2019. Outcome measures include intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmissions, and reoperations. RESULTS:263 patients were included (96 AC, 167 BC). AC was older than BC (60.0 vs 54.6, p = 0.025) and had lower BMI (27.1 vs 28.9, p = 0.047), but had similar CCI (3.2 vs 2.9 p = 0.312), and ASA Classification (2.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.790). Surgical characteristics, including levels fused (10.6 vs 10.7, p = 0.839), levels decompressed (1.29 vs 1.25, p = 0.863), 3 column osteotomies (10.4% vs 18.6%, p = 0.080), anterior column release (9.4% vs 12.6%, p = 0.432), and revision cases (53.1% vs 52.4%, p = 0.911) were similar between AC and BC. AC had lower EBL (1.1 vs 1.9L, p < 0.001) and fewer total intraoperative complications (16.7% vs 34.1%, p = 0.002), including fewer dural tears (4.2% vs 12.6%, p = 0.025), delayed extubations (8.3% vs 22.8%%, p = 0.003), and massive blood loss (4.2% vs 13.2%, p = 0.018). Length of stay (LOS) was similar between groups (7.2 vs 8.2 days, 0.251). AC had a lower incidence of deep surgical site infections (SSI, 1.0% vs 6.6%, p = 0.038), but a higher rate of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy (18.8% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). Other postoperative complications were similar between groups. AC had lower rates of reoperation at 30 (2.1% vs 8.4%, p = 0.040) and 90 days (3.1 vs 12.0%, p = 0.014) and lower readmission rates at 30 (3.1% vs 10.2%, p = 0.038) and 90 days (6.3 vs 15.0%, p = 0.035). On logistic regression, AC patients had higher odds of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy and lower odds of delayed extubation, intraoperative RBC, and intraoperative salvage blood. CONCLUSIONS:Following implementation of a multidisciplinary high-risk case conference, 30- and 90-day reoperation and readmission rates, intraoperative complications, and postoperative deep SSIs decreased. Hypotensive events requiring vasopressors increased, but did not result in longer LOS or greater readmissions. These associations suggest a multidisciplinary conference may help improve quality and safety for high-risk spine patients. particularly through minimizing complications and optimizing outcomes in complex spine surgery.

Introduction Post-operative physical therapy (PT) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery is often performed to improve a patient's functional ability and reduce neck pain. However, current literature evaluating the benefits of post-operative PT using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is limited and remains inconclusive. Here we compare post-operative improvement between patients who did and did not undergo formal PT after ACDF using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores. Methods A retrospective observational study examining patients who underwent one- or two-level primary ACDF or cervical disc replacement (CDR) at an academic orthopedic hospital and who had PROMIS scores recorded pre-operatively and through two-year follow-up. Patients were stratified according to whether or not they attended formal postoperative PT. PROMIS scores and patient demographics were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, chi-square test of independence, and Student's t-test within and between cohorts. Results Two hundred and twenty patients were identified. Demographic differences between PT and no PT groups include age (PT 54.1 vs. no PT 49.5, p=0.005) and BMI (PT 28.1 vs. no PT 29.8, p=0.028). The only significant difference in post-operative PROMIS scores was in physical health scores at three months post-operatively (no PT 43.9 vs. PT 39.1, p=0.008). Physical health scores improved from baseline to one-year follow-up in both cohorts (PT +3.5, p=0.025; no PT +6.6, p=0.008). There were no significant differences when comparing improvements in physical health scores between groups at six months and one year. Conclusion In conclusion, there was no significance to support the benefits of post-operative PT as measured by PROMIS scores. No significant differences in PROMIS were observed between groups from pre-operative baseline scores to six-month and one-year follow-ups.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Despite adequate correction, the pelvis may fail to readjust, deemed pelvic non-response. To assess alignment outcomes(pelvic non-response[PNR], PJK, postoperative cervical deformity[CD]) following ASD surgery utilizing different realignment strategies. METHODS:ASD patients with 2-year(2Y) data were included. PNR defined as undercorrected in age-adjusted pelvic tilt(PT) at 6W and maintained at 2Y. Patients classified by alignment utilities: [a] Improvement in SRS-Schwab SVA,[b] Matching in age-adjusted PI-LL,[c] Matching in Roussouly,[d] aligning Global Alignment and Proportionality(GAP) score. Multivariable regression analyses, controlling for age, baseline deformity, and surgical factors, assessed rates of PNR, PJK, and CD development following realignment. RESULTS:686 patients met inclusion criteria. Rates of postop PJK and CD were not significant in the PNR group(both P>0.15). PNR patients less often met substantial clinical benefit in ODI by 2Y(OR: 0.6,[0.4-0.98]). Patients overcorrected in age-adjusted PI-LL, matching Roussouly, or proportioned in GAP at 6W had lower rates of PNR(all P<0.001). Incremental addition of classifications led to 0% occurrence of PNR, PJK and CD. Stratifying by baseline PT severity, Low and Moderate deformity demonstrated the least incidence of PNR(7.7%) when proportioning in GAP at 6W, while severe PT benefited most from matching in Roussouly(all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Following ASD corrective surgery, 24.9% of patients showed residual pelvic malalignment. This occurrence was often accompanied by undercorrection of lumbopelvic mismatch and less improvement of pain. However, overcorrection in any strategy incurred higher rates of PJK. We recommend surgeons identify a middle ground using one, or more, of the available classifications to inform correction goals in this regard. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The advantages of Lateral Single Position surgery (LSPS) in the perioperative period has previously been demonstrated, however 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSPS versus gold-standard FLIP STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multi-center retrospective cohort review. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:Four hundred forty- two patients undergoing lumbar fusion via LSPS or FLIP OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, and reasons for reoperation at 30-days, 90-days, 1-year, and 2-years. Radiographic outcomes included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch, and segmental lumbar lordosis. METHODS:Patients were grouped as LSPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure under the same anesthetic. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2-years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<.05. RESULTS:Four hundred forty- two pts met inclusion, including 352 LSPS and 90 FLIP pts. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs 56.9; p≤.001) and smoking status (7% vs 16%; p=.023) between the LSPS and FLIP groups. LSPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p<.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p<.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p<.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs 3.61 days; p<.001) compared to FLIP. LSPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9%vs 34.4%; p=.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p<.001). No differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%LSPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=.125), 90-day (5.1%LSPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.441). LSPS group had a significantly lower preoperative PI-LL (4.1° LSPS vs 8.6°FLIP, p=.018), and a significantly greater postoperative LL (56.6° vs 51.8°, p = .006). No significant differences were noted in rates of fusion (94.3% LSPS vs 97.8% FLIP; p=.266) or subsidence (6.9% LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.260). CONCLUSIONS:LSPS and circumferential fusions have similar outcomes at 2-years post-operatively, while reducing perioperative complications, improving perioperative efficiency and safety.

PURPOSE:To evaluate the impact of the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) on Distal Junctional kyphosis (DJK) incidence in adult cervical deformity (ACD) surgery. METHODS:Prospectively collected data from ACD patients undergoing posterior or anterior-posterior reconstruction at 13 US sites was reviewed up to 2-years postoperatively (n = 140). Data was stratified into five groups by level of LIV: C6-C7, T1-T2, T3-Apex, Apex-T10, and T11-L2. DJK was defined as a kyphotic increase > 10° in Cobb angle from LIV to LIV-1. Analysis included DJK-free survival, covariate-controlled cox regression, and DJK incidence at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS:25/27 cases of DJK developed within 1-year post-op. In patients with a minimum follow-up of 1-year (n = 102), the incidence of DJK by level of LIV was: C6-7 (3/12, 25.00%), T1-T2 (3/29, 10.34%), T3-Apex (7/41, 17.07%), Apex-T10 (8/11, 72.73%), and T11-L2 (4/8, 50.00%) (p < 0.001). DJK incidence was significantly lower in the T1-T2 LIV group (adjusted residual = -2.13), and significantly higher in the Apex-T10 LIV group (adjusted residual = 3.91). In covariate-controlled regression using the T11-L2 LIV group as reference, LIV selected at the T1-T2 level (HR = 0.054, p = 0.008) or T3-Apex level (HR = 0.081, p = 0.010) was associated with significantly lower risk of DJK. However, there was no difference in DJK risk when LIV was selected at the C6-C7 level (HR = 0.239, p = 0.214). CONCLUSION:DJK risk is lower when the LIV is at the upper thoracic segment than the lower cervical segment. DJK incidence is highest with LIV level in the lower thoracic or thoracolumbar junction.