Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Non-operative management is a common initial treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients despite reported superiority of surgery with regard to outcomes. Ineffective medical care is a large source of resource drain on the health system. Characterization of ASD patients likely to elect for operative treatment from nonoperative management may allow for more efficient patient counseling and cost savings. PURPOSE: To identify deformity and disability characteristics of ASD patients that ultimately convert to operative treatment compared to those that remain non-operative and those that initially choose surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLE: 510 ASD patients (189 non-operative, 321 operative) with minimum 2-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 36 Health Assessment (SF-36), Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22r), and spino-pelvic radiographic alignment. METHODS: Demographic, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from a cohort of ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multi-center database were evaluated. Patients were divided into 3 treatment cohorts: Non-operative (NON=initial non-operative treatment and remained non-operative), Operative (OP=initial operative treatment), and Crossover (CROSS=initial non-operative treatment with subsequent conversion to operative treatment). NON and OP groups were propensity score matched (PSM) to CROSS for to baseline demographics (age, BMI, CCI). Time to crossover was divided into early (<1yr) and late ( >1yr). Outcome measures were compared across and within treatment groups at 4 time points (baseline, 6-week, 1-, and 2-years). RESULTS: Following PSM, 118 patients were included (NON=39, OP=38, CROSS=41). Crossover rate was 21.7% (41/189). Mean time to crossover was 394 days. All groups had similar baseline sagittal alignment, but CROSS had larger PI-LL mismatch than NON (11.9 degrees vs. 3.1 degrees , p=0.032). CROSS and OP had similar baseline PROM scores, however CROSS had worse baseline ODI, PCS, SRS-22r (p<0.05). At time of crossover, CROSS had worse ODI (35.7 vs. 27.8) and SRS Satisfaction (2.6 vs. 3.3) compared to NON (p<0.05). Alignment remained similar for CROSS from baseline to conversion however PROMs (ODI, PCS, SRS Activity/Pain/Total) worsened (p<0.05). Early and late crossover evaluation demonstrated CROSS-early (n=25) had worsening ODI, SRS Activity/Pain at time of crossover (p<0.05). From time of crossover to 2yr follow-up, CROSS-early had less SRS Appearance/Mental improvement compared to OP. Both CROSS-early/late had worse baseline, but greater improvements, in ODI, PCS, SRS Pain/Total compared to NON (p<0.05). Baseline alignment and disability parameters increased crossover odds - Non with Schwab T/L/D curves and ODI>/=40 (OR: 3.05, p=0.031), and Non with high PI-LL modifier grades ('+'/'++') and ODI>/=40 (OR: 5.57, p=0.007) were at increased crossover risk. CONCLUSIONS: High baseline and increasing disability over time drives conversion from non-operative to operative ASD care. CROSS patients had similar spinal deformity but worse PROMs than NON. CROSS achieved similar 2-year outcome scores as OP. Profiling at first visit for patients at risk of crossover may optimize physician counseling and cost savings.

PURPOSE: A comprehensive understanding of normative sagittal profile is necessary for adult spinal deformity. Roussouly described four sagittal alignment types based on sacral slope, lumbar lordosis, and location of lumbar apex. However, the lower limb, a newly described component of spinal malalignment compensation, is missing from this classification. This study aims to propose a full-body sagittal profile classification in an asymptomatic population based on full-body imaging. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective single-center study of 116 asymptomatic volunteers. Cluster analysis including all sagittal parameters was first performed, and then ANOVA was performed between sub-clusters to eliminate the non-significantly different parameters. This loop was repeated until all parameters were significantly different between each sub-cluster. RESULTS: Three types of full-body sagittal profiles were finalized according to cluster analysis with ten radiographic parameters: hyperlordosis type (77 subjects), neutral type (28 subjects), and compensated type (11 subjects). Radiographic parameters included knee angle, pelvic shift, pelvic angle, PT, PI-LL, C7-S1 SVA, TPA, T1 slope, C2-C7 angle, and C2-C7 SVA. Age was significantly different across compensation types, while BMI and gender were comparable. Age-matched subjects were randomly selected with 11 subjects in each type. ANOVA analysis revealed that all parameters but PT and C2-C7 angle remained significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The current three compensation types of full-body sagittal profiles in asymptomatic adults included significant changes from cervical region to knee, indicating that subjects should be evaluated with full-length imaging. All three types exist regardless of age, but the distribution may vary.

BACKGROUND: Adult cervical deformity (ACD) classifications have not been implemented in a prospective ACD population and in conjunction with adult spinal deformity (ASD) classifications. OBJECTIVE: To characterize cervical deformity type and malalignment with 2 classifications (Ames-ACD and Schwab-ASD). METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospective multicenter ACD database. Inclusion: patients >/=18 yr with pre- and postoperative radiographs. Patients were classified with Ames-ACD and Schwab-ASD schemes. Ames-ACD descriptors (C = cervical, CT = cervicothoracic, T = thoracic, S = coronal, CVJ = craniovertebral) and alignment modifiers (cervical sagittal vertical axis [cSVA], T1 slope minus cervical lordosis [TS-CL], modified Japanese Ortphopaedic Association [mJOA] score, horizontal gaze) were assigned. Schwab-ASD curve type stratification and modifier grades were also designated. Deformity and alignment group distributions were compared with Pearson chi 2 /ANOVA. RESULTS: Ames-ACD descriptors in 84 patients: C = 49 (58.3%), CT = 20 (23.8%), T = 9 (10.7%), S = 6 (7.1%). cSVA modifier grades differed in C, CT, and T deformities ( P < .019). In C, TS-CL grade prevalence differed ( P = .031). Among Ames-ACD modifiers, high (1+2) cSVA grades differed across deformities (C = 47.7%, CT = 89.5%, T = 77.8%, S = 50.0%, P = .013). Schwab-ASD curve type and presence (n = 74, T = 2, L = 6, D = 2) differed significantly in S deformities ( P < .001). Higher Schwab-ASD pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis grades were less likely in Ames-ACD CT deformities ( P = .027). Higher pelvic tilt grades were greater in high (1+2) cSVA (71.4% vs 36.0%, P = .015) and high (2+3) mJOA (24.0% vs 38.1%, P = .021) scores. Postoperatively, C and CT deformities had a trend toward lower cSVA grades, but only C deformities differed in TS-CL grade prevalence (0 = 31.3%, 1 = 12.2%, 2 = 56.1%, P = .007). CONCLUSION: Cervical deformities displayed higher TS-CL grades and different cSVA grade distributions. Preoperative associations with global alignment modifiers and Ames-ACD descriptors were observed, though only cervical modifiers showed postoperative differences.

BACKGROUND: Global sagittal deformity is an established cause of disability. However, measurements of sagittal alignment are often ignored when patients present with symptoms localizing to the cervical or lumbar spine. OBJECTIVE: To develop scoring scales to predict the risk of sagittal malalignment in patients with only cervical or lumbar spine radiographs. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter adult spinal deformity database was performed. Primary outcome (sagittal malalignment) was defined as a C7 plumbline >/= 50 mm. Two multivariate logistic regressions were performed using patient characteristics and measurements derived from cervical or lumbar radiographs as covariates. Point scores were assigned to age, body mass index (BMI), and lumbar lordosis or T1 slope by rounding their ss coefficients to the nearest integer. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-nine patients were included, with 652 randomly assigned to the derivation cohort (used to build the score) and 327 comprising the validation set. Final cervical score for the primary outcome included BMI >/= 25 (1 point), age >/= 55 yr (2 points), and T1 slope >/= 27 o (2 points). Final lumbar score for the primary outcome included BMI >/= 25 (1 point), age >/= 55 yr (1 point), and lumbar lordosis >/= 45 o (-1 points). High scores for both the cervical and lumbar spine presented with high specificity and positive likelihood ratios of sagittal malalignment. CONCLUSION: We developed scoring scales to predict global sagittal malalignment utilizing clinical covariates and cervical or lumbar radiographs. Patients with high scores may prompt imaging with long-cassette plain films to evaluate for global sagittal imbalance.

STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective review of a prospective database. OBJECTIVES:To investigate adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery outcome trends on a nationwide scale using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2003 to 2010. METHODS:ASD patients ≥25 years from 2003 to 2010 in the NIS undergoing anterior, posterior, or combined surgical approaches were included. Fractures, 9+ levels fused, or any cancer were excluded. Patient demographics, hospital data, and procedure-related complications were evaluated. Yearly trends were analyzed using univariate analysis and linear regression modeling. RESULTS:Of 10,966 discharges, 1,952 were anterior, 6,524 were posterior, and 1,106 were combined. The total surgical ASD volume increased by 112.5% (p = .029), and both the average patient age (p < .001) and number of patients >65 years old significantly increased from 2003 to 2010 (p = .009). Anterior approach case volume decreased by 13.7% (p = .019), whereas that of combined increased by 22.7% (p = .047). Posterior case volume increased by 38.9% from 2003 to 2010, though insignificantly (p = .084). Total hospital charges for all approaches increased over the interval (p < .001). Total length of stay for all approaches decreased over the time interval (p < .005). Although the overall morbidity for all approaches increased by 22.7% (p < .001), mortality did not change (p = .817). The most common morbidities in 2003 were hemorrhagic anemia, accidental cut, puncture, perforation, or laceration during a procedure, and device-related complications, which persisted in 2010 with the exception of increased acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary-related complications. CONCLUSIONS:For ASD surgery from 2003 to 2010, the volume of anterior approaches decreased, whereas posterior procedures did not change, and combined approaches increased. Total hospital charges increased for all considered procedures, length of hospital stay decreased, whereas operative patients were increasingly elderly, and more procedures were observed for patients >65 years old. For all approaches, morbidity increased whereas mortality did not change. Future study is required to develop methods to reduce morbidity and costs, thereby optimizing patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE Depression and anxiety have been demonstrated to have negative impacts on outcomes after spine surgery. In patients with cervical deformity (CD), the psychological and physiological burdens of the disease may overlap without clear boundaries. While surgery has a proven record of bringing about significant pain relief and decreased disability, the impact of depression and anxiety on recovery from cervical deformity corrective surgery has not been previously reported on in the literature. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of depression and anxiety on patients' recovery from and improvement after CD surgery. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter CD database. Patients with a history of clinical depression, in addition to those with current self-reported anxiety or depression, were defined as depressed (D group). The D group was compared with nondepressed patients (ND group) with a similar baseline deformity determined by propensity score matching of the cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA). Baseline demographic, comorbidity, clinical, and radiographic data were compared among patients using t-tests. Improvement of symptoms was recorded at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. All health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores collected at these follow-up time points were compared using t-tests. RESULTS Sixty-six patients were matched for baseline radiographic parameters: 33 with a history of depression and/or current depression, and 33 without. Depressed patients had similar age, sex, race, and radiographic alignment: cSVA, T-1 slope minus C2-7 lordosis, SVA, and T-1 pelvic angle (p > 0.05). Compared with nondepressed individuals, depressed patients had a higher incidence of osteoporosis (21.2% vs 3.2%, p = 0.028), rheumatoid arthritis (18.2% vs 3.2%, p = 0.012), and connective tissue disorders (18.2% vs 3.2%, p = 0.012). At baseline, the D group had greater neck pain (7.9 of 10 vs 6.6 on a Numeric Rating Scale [NRS], p = 0.015), lower mean EQ-5D scores (68.9 vs 74.7, p < 0.001), but similar Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores (57.5 vs 49.9, p = 0.063) and myelopathy scores (13.4 vs 13.9, p = 0.546). Surgeries performed in either group were similar in terms of number of levels fused, osteotomies performed, and correction achieved (baseline to 3-month measurements) (p < 0.05). At 3 months, EQ-5D scores remained lower in the D group (74.0 vs 78.2, p = 0.044), and NDI scores were similar (48.5 vs 39.0, p = 0.053). However, neck pain improved in the D group (NRS score of 5.0 vs 4.3, p = 0.331), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores remained similar (14.2 vs 15.0, p = 0.211). At 6 months and 1 year, all HRQOL scores were similar between the 2 cohorts. One-year measurements were as follows: NDI 39.7 vs 40.7 (p = 0.878), NRS neck pain score of 4.1 vs 5.0 (p = 0.326), EQ-5D score of 77.1 vs 78.2 (p = 0.646), and mJOA score of 14.0 vs 14.2 (p = 0.835). Anxiety/depression levels reported on the EQ-5D scale were significantly higher in the depressed cohort at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months (all p < 0.05), but were similar between groups at 1 year postoperatively (1.72 vs 1.53, p = 0.416). CONCLUSIONS Clinical depression was observed in many of the study patients with CD. After matching for baseline deformity, depression symptomology resulted in worse baseline EQ-5D and pain scores. Despite these baseline differences, both cohorts achieved similar results in all HRQOL assessments 6 months and 1 year postoperatively, demonstrating no clinical impact of depression on recovery up until 1 year after CD surgery. Thus, a history of depression does not appear to have an impact on recovery from CD surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis (DLS) adopt a forward flexed posture in an attempt to decompress neural elements. The relationship between sagittal alignment and severity of lumbar stenosis has not previously been studied. PURPOSE: We hypothesized that patients with increasing radiological severity of lumbar stenosis will exhibit worsening sagittal alignment. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Our sample consists of patients who have DLS. OUTCOME MEASURES: Standing pelvic, regional, lower extremity and global sagittal alignment, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were the outcome measures. METHODS: Patients with DLS were identified from a retrospective clinical database with corresponding full-body stereoradiographs. Exclusion criteria included coronal malalignment, prior spine surgery, spondylolisthesis>Grade 1, non-degenerative spinal pathology, or skeletal immaturity. Central stenosis severity was graded on axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from L1-S1. Foraminal stenosis and supine lordosis was graded on sagittal T1-weighted images. Standing pelvic, regional, lower extremity, and global sagittal alignment were measured using validated software. The HRQoL measures were also analyzed in relation to severity of stenosis. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were identified with DLS on appropriate imaging. As central stenosis grade increased, patients displayed significantly increasing standing T1 pelvic angle, pelvic tilt, sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (p<.05). No significant difference wasfound in pelvic incidence, supine lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, or T1 spinopelvic inclination between central stenosis groups. Despite similar supine lordosis between stenosis groups, patients with Grades 2 and 3 stenosis had less standing lordosis, suggesting antalgic posturing. Upper lumbar (L1-L3) stenosis predicted worse alignment than lower lumbar (L4-S1) stenosis. Increasing severity of foraminal stenosis was associated with reduced lumbar lordosis; however, no significant postural difference in lordosis, thoracolumbar, or lower extremity compensatory mechanisms were noted between foraminal stenosis groups. Stenosis grading did not predict worsening HRQoLs in central or foraminal stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Severity of central lumbar stenosis as graded on MRI correlates with severity of sagittal malalignment. These findings support theories of sagittal malalignment as a compensatory mechanism for central lumbar stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcome of adult spinal deformity (ASD) in patients with rod fracture (RF) after thoracolumbar fusion. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospective, multicenter database. Operative patients with ASD >/=18 years old with RF after ASD surgery and with a minimum 6-month follow-up after RF were included. Health-related quality of life scores and radiographic alignment were compared with nonparametric paired and independent testing (P < 0.05). RESULTS: A total of 51 of 343 patients with ASD (14.9%) sustained a RF, of whom 44 (86.3%) had at least 6-month follow up after RF (mean age = 61.2 years, mean body mass index = 29.6 kg/m2). Mean total follow-up was 37.8 months (range 24.5-66.7 months). Interbody fusion was used in 26 cases of RF (59.1%) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, n = 17 [65.4%], anterior lumbar interbody fusion, n = 5 [19.2%]). RF was symptomatic in 26 of 44 (59.1%) of patients and discovered incidentally in 18 of 44 patients (40.9%). Overall, 28 RFs were revised (63.6%); 12 of 23 (52.2%) unilateral RF and 16 of 21 (76.2%) bilateral RF at last follow-up. Revision patients were significantly more likely to be symptomatic at the time of RF detection (78.6% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.0006), and had significantly worse Oswestry Disability Index and Scoliosis Research Society-22r pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: RFs were detected in 14.9% of patients with ASD and were most common at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels. Approximately 63.6% of patients underwent revision surgery. The decision to perform revision surgery may be based predominantly on symptoms referable to the RF, pain, and perceived disability, as radiographic parameters at the time of RF did not differ significantly between patients who did and did not undergo revision.