Faculty Bibliography

AIMS/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the level of upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) in frail patients undergoing surgery for adult spine deformity (ASD). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients with adult spinal deformity who had undergone T9-to-pelvis fusion were stratified using the ASD-Modified Frailty Index into not frail, frail, and severely frail categories. ASD was defined as at least one of: scoliosis ≥ 20°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) ≥ 5 cm, or pelvic tilt ≥ 25°. Means comparisons tests were used to assess differences between both groups. Logistic regression analyses were used to analyze associations between frailty categories, UIV, and outcomes. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:(SD 5.8), mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 1.67 (SD 1.66)). Overall, 74% of patients were female (n = 353), and 49.6% of patients were not frail (237), 35.4% frail (n = 169), and 15% severely frail (n = 71). At baseline, differences in age, BMI, CCI, and deformity were significant (all p = 0.001). Overall, 15.5% of patients (n = 74) had experienced mechanical complications by two years (8.1% not frail (n = 36), 15.1% frail (n = 26), and 16.3% severely frail (n = 12); p = 0.013). Reoperations also differed between groups (20.2% (n = 48) vs 23.3% (n = 39) vs 32.6% (n = 23); p = 0.011). Controlling for osteoporosis, baseline deformity, and degree of correction (by sagittal age-adjusted score (SAAS) matching), frail and severely frail patients were more likely to experience mechanical complications if they had heart failure (odds ratio (OR) 6.6 (95% CI 1.6 to 26.7); p = 0.008), depression (OR 5.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 25.7); p = 0.048), or cancer (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.4); p = 0.004). Frail and severely frail patients experienced higher rates of mechanical complication than 'not frail' patients at two years (19% (n = 45) vs 11.9% (n = 29); p = 0.003). When controlling for baseline deformity and degree of correction in severely frail and frail patients, severely frail patients were less likely to experience clinically relevant proximal junctional kyphosis or failure or mechanical complications by two years, if they had a more proximal UIV. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Frail patients are at risk of a poor outcome after surgery for adult spinal deformity due to their comorbidities. Although a definitively prescriptive upper instrumented vertebra remains elusive, these patients appear to be at greater risk for a poor outcome if the upper instrumented vertebra is sited more distally.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate factors associated with the long-term durability of cost-effectiveness (CE) in ASD patients. BACKGROUND:A substantial increase in costs associated with the surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) has given precedence to scrutinize the value and utility it provides. METHODS:We included 327 operative ASD patients with five-year (5 yr) follow-up. Published methods were used to determine costs based on CMS.gov definitions and were based on the average DRG reimbursement rates. The utility was calculated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) utilizing the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) converted to Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D), with a 3% discount applied for its decline in life expectancy. The CE threshold of $150,000 was used for primary analysis. RESULTS:Major and minor complication rates were 11% and 47%, respectively, with 26% undergoing reoperation by five years. The mean cost associated with surgery was $91,095±$47,003, with a utility gain of 0.091±0.086 at one years, QALY gained at 2 years of 0.171±0.183, and at five years of 0.42±0.43. The cost per QALY at two years was $414,885, which decreased to $142,058 at five years.With the threshold of $150,000 for CE, 19% met CE at two years and 56% at five years. In those in which revision was avoided, 87% met cumulative CE till life expectancy. Controlling analysis depicted higher baseline CCI and pelvic tilt (PT) to be the strongest predictors for not maintaining durable CE to five years [CCI OR: 1.821 (1.159-2.862), P =0.009] [PT OR: 1.079 (1.007-1.155), P =0.030]. CONCLUSIONS:Most patients achieved cost-effectiveness after four years postoperatively, with 56% meeting at five years postoperatively. When revision was avoided, 87% of patients met cumulative cost-effectiveness till life expectancy. Mechanical complications were predictive of failure to achieve cost-effectiveness at two years, while comorbidity burden and medical complications were at five years.

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:To determine the incidence and success of three-column osteotomies (3COs) performed in primary and revision adult spine deformity (ASD) corrective surgeries. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE/UNASSIGNED:3COs are often required to correct severe, rigid ASD presentations. However, controversy remains on the utility of 3COs, particularly in primary surgery. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients ASD having 2-year data were included and divided into 3CO and non-3CO (remaining ASD cohort) groups. For the subanalysis, patients were stratified based on whether they were undergoing primary (P3CO) or revision (R3CO) surgery. Multivariate analysis controlling for age, Charlson comorbidity index, body mass index, baseline pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis, and fused levels evaluated the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between the 3CO and non-3CO groups. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of the 436 patients included, 20% had 3COs. 3COs were performed in 16% of P3COs and 51% of R3COs. Both 3CO groups had greater severity in deformity and disability at baseline; however, only R3COs improved more than non-3COs. Despite greater segmental correction, 3COs had much lower rates of aligning in the lumbar distribution index (LDI), higher mechanical complications, and more reoperations when performed below L3. When comparing P3COs and R3COs, baseline lumbopelvic and global alignments, as well as disability, were different. The R3CO group had greater clinical improvements and global correction (both p<0.04), although the P3CO group achieved alignment in LDI more often (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-6.2; p=0.006). The P3CO group had more neurological complications (30% vs. 13%, p=0.042), whereas the R3CO tended to have higher mechanical complication rates (25% vs. 15%, p=0.2). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:3COs showed greater improvements in realignment while failing to demonstrate the same clinical improvement as primaries without a 3CO. Overall, when suitably indicated, a 3CO offers superior utility for achieving optimal realignment across primary and revision surgeries for ASD correction.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Understanding the mechanism and extent of preoperative deformity in revision procedures may provide data to prevent future failures in lumbar spinal fusion patients. METHODS:ASD patients without prior spine surgery (PRIMARY) and with prior short (SHORT) and long (LONG) fusions were included. SHORT patients were stratified into modes of failure: implant, junctional, malalignment, and neurologic. Baseline demographics, spinopelvic alignment, offset from alignment targets, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared across PRIMARY and SHORT cohorts. Segmental lordosis analyses, assessing under-, match, or over-correction to segmental and global lordosis targets, were performed by SRS-Schwab coronal curve type and construct length. RESULTS:Among 785 patients, 430 (55%) were PRIMARY and 355 (45%) were revisions. Revision procedures included 181 (23%) LONG and 174 (22%) SHORT corrections. SHORT modes of failure included 27% implant, 40% junctional, 73% malalignment, and/or 28% neurologic. SHORT patients were older, frailer, and had worse baseline deformity (PT, PI-LL, SVA) and PROMs (NRS, ODI, VR-12, SRS-22) compared to primary patients (p < 0.001). Segmental lordosis analysis identified 93%, 88%, and 62% undercorrected patients at LL, L1-L4, and L4-S1, respectively. SHORT patients more often underwent 3-column osteotomies (30% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and had higher ISSG Surgical Invasiveness Score (87.8 vs. 78.3, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS:Nearly half of adult spinal deformity surgeries were revision fusions. Revision short fusions were associated with sagittal malalignment, often due to undercorrection of segmental lordosis goals, and frequently required more invasive procedures. Further initiatives to optimize alignment in lumbar fusions are needed to avoid costly and invasive deformity corrections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients with sagittal plane deformity (N) or structural lumbar/thoraco-lumbar (TL) curves can be treated with fusions stopping at the TL junction or extending to the upper thoracic (UT) spine. This study evaluates the impact on cost/cumulative quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in patients treated with TL vs UT fusion. METHODS:ASD patients with > 4-level fusion and 2-year follow-up were included. Index and total episode-of-care costs were estimated using average itemized direct costs obtained from hospital records. Cumulative QALY gained were calculated from preoperative to 2-year postoperative change in Short Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) scores. The TL and UT groups comprised patients with upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) at T9-T12 and T2-T5, respectively. RESULTS:Of 566 patients with type N or L curves, mean age was 63.2 ± 12.1 years, 72% were female and 93% Caucasians. Patients in the TL group had better sagittal vertical axis (7.3 ± 6.9 vs. 9.2 ± 8.1 cm, p = 0.01), lower surgical invasiveness (- 30; p < 0.001), and shorter OR time (- 35 min; p = 0.01). Index and total costs were 20% lower in the TL than in the UT group (p < 0.001). Cost/QALY was 65% lower (492,174.6 vs. 963,391.4), and 2-year QALY gain was 40% higher, in the TL than UT group (0.15 vs. 0.10; p = 0.02). Multivariate model showed TL fusions had lower total cost (p = 0.001) and higher QALY gain (p = 0.03) than UT fusions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In Schwab type N or L curves, TL fusions showed lower 2-year cost and improved QALY gain without increased reoperation rates or length of stay than UT fusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

OBJECTIVE:The objective was to determine the degree of regional decompensation to pelvic tilt (PT) normalization after complex adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. METHODS:Operative ASD patients with 1 year of PT measurements were included. Patients with normalized PT at baseline were excluded. Predicted PT was compared to actual PT, tested for change from baseline, and then compared against age-adjusted, Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab, and global alignment and proportion (GAP) scores. Lower-extremity (LE) parameters included the cranial-hip-sacrum angle, cranial-knee-sacrum angle, and cranial-ankle-sacrum angle. LE compensation was set as the 1-year upper tertile compared with intraoperative baseline. Univariate analyses were used to compare normalized and nonnormalized data against alignment outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to develop a model consisting of significant predictors for normalization related to regional compensation. RESULTS:In total, 156 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean ± SD age 64.6 ± 9.1 years, BMI 27.9 ± 5.6 kg/m2, Charlson Comorbidity Index 1.9 ± 1.6). Patients with normalized PT were more likely to have overcorrected pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis and sagittal vertical axis at 6 weeks (p < 0.05). GAP score at 6 weeks was greater for patients with nonnormalized PT (0.6 vs 1.3, p = 0.08). At baseline, 58.5% of patients had compensation in the thoracic and cervical regions. Postoperatively, compensation was maintained by 42% with no change after matching in age-adjusted or GAP score. The patients with nonnormalized PT had increased rates of thoracic and cervical compensation (p < 0.05). Compensation in thoracic kyphosis differed between patients with normalized PT at 6 weeks and those with normalized PT at 1 year (69% vs 35%, p < 0.05). Those who compensated had increased rates of implant complications by 1 year (OR [95% CI] 2.08 [1.32-6.56], p < 0.05). Cervical compensation was maintained at 6 weeks and 1 year (56% vs 43%, p = 0.12), with no difference in implant complications (OR 1.31 [95% CI -2.34 to 1.03], p = 0.09). For the lower extremities at baseline, 61% were compensating. Matching age-adjusted alignment did not eliminate compensation at any joint (all p > 0.05). Patients with nonnormalized PT had higher rates of LE compensation across joints (all p < 0.01). Overall, patients with normalized PT at 1 year had the greatest odds of resolving LE compensation (OR 9.6, p < 0.001). Patients with normalized PT at 1 year had lower rates of implant failure (8.9% vs 19.5%, p < 0.05), rod breakage (1.3% vs 13.8%, p < 0.05), and pseudarthrosis (0% vs 4.6%, p < 0.05) compared with patients with nonnormalized PT. The complication rate was significantly lower for patients with normalized PT at 1 year (56.7% vs 66.1%, p = 0.02), despite comparable health-related quality of life scores. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with PT normalization had greater rates of resolution in thoracic and LE compensation, leading to lower rates of complications by 1 year. Thus, consideration of both the lower extremities and thoracic regions in surgical planning is vital to preventing adverse outcomes and maintaining pelvic alignment.

OBJECTIVE:The objective was to evaluate factors associated with the long-term durability of outcomes in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. METHODS:Operative ASD patients fused from at least L1 to the sacrum with baseline (BL) to 5-year (5Y) follow-up were included. Substantial clinical benefit (SCB) in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS)-back, NRS-leg, and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22r scores and physical component score were assessed on the basis of previously published values. Factors were evaluated on the basis of meeting optimal outcomes (OO) at 2 years (2+) and 5 years (5+). Furthermore, 2+ patients were isolated and evaluated on the basis of meeting OO at 5 years (2+5+) or not at 5 years (2+5-). OO were defined as follows: no reoperation, major mechanical failure, proximal junctional failure, and meeting either 1) SCB in terms of ODI score (decrease > 18.8) or 2) ODI < 15 and SRS-22r total > 4.5. RESULTS:In total, 330 ASD patients met the inclusion criteria, with 45.5% meeting SCB for ODI at 2 years, while 46.0% met SCB at 5 years; 79% of those who achieved 2-year (2Y) SCB went on to achieve 5Y SCB. This rate was lower for OO, with 41% achieving 2Y OO (2+), while 37% met 5Y OO (5+) and 80% of 2+ patients had durable outcomes until 5+ (32% of the total cohort). Of the patient factors, frailty was significantly different among groups at 2 years, while comorbidity burden was significantly different at 5 years and the combination thereof differed in those with durable outcomes. Those who regained their level of activity postoperatively had 4 times higher odds of maintaining OO from 2 years to 5 years (p < 0.05). Osteoporosis rates, although equivocal at BL, were higher at the last follow-up in those who met 2Y OO but failed to meet 5Y OO. The odds of achieving OO at 5 years in 2+ patients decreased by 47% for each additional comorbidity and decreased by 74% in those who had lower-extremity paresthesias at BL (both p < 0.05). Controlling for patient factors and BL disability found fewer levels fused, decreased correction of sagittal vertical axis, and increased correction of pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch to be predictive of maintaining 2Y OO until 5 years (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:SCB was met in 46% of ASD patients at 5 years. The durability of OO was seen in a third of patients until 5 years postoperatively. Higher rates of medical complications were seen in those who failed to achieve and maintain OO until 5 years. Frailty and comorbidity burden were significant factors associated with the achievement and durability of OO until 5 years.

Cervical spine deformity surgery has significantly evolved over recent decades. There has been substantial work performed, which has furthered the true understanding of alignment and advancements in surgical technique and instrumentation. Concomitantly, understanding of cervical spine pathology and the contributing drivers have also improved, which have influenced the development of classification systems for cervical spine deformity and the development of treatment-guiding algorithms. This article aims to provide a synopsis of the current knowledge surrounding cervical spine deformity to date, with particular focus on preoperative expected alignment targets, perioperative optimization, and the whole operative strategy.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic review. OBJECTIVE:To assess the available evidence related to dose-dependent effectiveness (i.e., bone fusion) and morbidity of osteobiologics used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS:Studies with more than 9 adult patients with degenerated/herniated cervical discs operated for one-to four-levels ACDF reporting used osteobiologics doses, fusion rates at six months or later, and related comorbidities were included. PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials, and Cochrane were searched through September 2021. Data extracted in spread sheet and risk of bias assessed using MINORS and Rob-2. RESULTS:Sixteen studies were selected and sub-grouped into BMP and non-BMP osteobiologics. For the 10 BMP studies, doses varied from 0.26 to 2.1 mg in 649 patients with fusion rates of 95.3 to 100% at 12 months. For other osteobiologics, each of six studies reported one type of osteobiologic in certain dose/concentration/volume in a total of 580 patients with fusion rates of 6.8 to 96.9% at 12 months. Risk of bias was low in three of the 13 non-randomized (18.75%) and in all the three randomized studies (100%). CONCLUSIONS:Taking into account the inconsistent reporting within available literature, for BMP usage in ACDF, doses lower than 0.7 mg per level can achieve equal successful fusion rates as higher doses, and there is no complication-free dose proved yet. It seems that the lower the dose the lower the incidence of serious complications. As for non-BMP osteobiologics the studies are very limited for each osteobiologic and thus conclusions must be drawn individually and with caution.