Faculty Bibliography

AIMS/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this study was to reassess the rate of neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications associated with L4-L5 lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) undertaken using a standardized preoperative assessment and surgical technique. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This was a multicentre retrospective study involving consecutively enrolled patients who underwent L4-L5 LLIF by seven surgeons at seven institutions in three countries over a five-year period. The demographic details of the patients and the details of the surgery, reoperations and complications, including femoral and non-femoral neuropraxia, thigh pain, weakness of hip flexion, and abdominal complications, were analyzed. Neurological and psoas-related complications attributed to LLIF or posterior instrumentation and persistent symptoms were recorded at one year postoperatively. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:(SD 5.5). A mean of 1.2 levels (SD 0.6) were fused with LLIF, and a mean of 1.6 (SD 0.9) posterior levels were fused. Femoral neuropraxia occurred in six patients (1.2%), of which four (0.8%) were LLIF-related and two (0.4%) had persistent symptoms one year postoperatively. Non-femoral neuropraxia occurred in nine patients (1.8%), one (0.2%) was LLIF-related and five (1.0%) were persistent at one year. All LLIF-related neuropraxias resolved by one year. A total of 32 patients (6.2%) had thigh pain, 31 (6.0%) were LLIF-related and three (0.6%) were persistent at one year. Weakness of hip flexion occurred in 14 patients (2.7%), of which eight (1.6%) were LLIF-related and three (0.6%) were persistent at one year. No patients had bowel injury, three (0.6%) had an intraoperative vascular injury (not LLIF-related), and five (1.0%) had ileus. Reoperations occurred in five patients (1.0%) within 30 days, 37 (7.2%) within 90 days, and 41 (7.9%) within one year postoperatively. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:LLIF involving the L4-L5 disc level has a low rate of persistent neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications in patients with the appropriate indications and using a standardized surgical technique.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the impact of correcting to normative segmental lordosis values on post-operative outcomes. BACKGROUND:Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remains unclear. METHODS:Patients were grouped based on offset to normative segmental lordosis values, extracted from recent publications. Matched patients were within 10% of the cohort's mean offset, less than or over 10% were under- and over-corrected. Surgical technique, PROMs, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and 2-year. RESULTS:510 patients with an average age of 64.6, mean CCI 2.08, and average follow-up of 25 months. L4-5 was least likely to be matched (19.1%), while L4-S1 was the most likely (24.3%). More patients were overcorrected at proximal levels (T10-L2; Undercorrected, U: 32.2% vs. Matched, M: 21.7% vs. Overcorrected, O: 46.1%) and undercorrected at distal levels (L4-S1: U: 39.0% vs. M: 24.3% vs. O: 36.8%). Postoperative ODI was comparable across correction groups at all spinal levels except at L4-S1 and T10-L2/L4-S1, where overcorrected patients and matched were better than undercorrected (U: 32.1 vs. M: 25.4 vs. O: 26.5, P=0.005; U: 36.2 vs. M: 24.2 vs. O: 26.8, P=0.001; respectively). Patients overcorrected at T10-L2 experienced higher rates of proximal junctional failure (PJF) (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P<0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) (U: -9.2±9.4° vs. M: -9.6±9.1° vs. O: -12.2±10.0°, P<0.001), whereas undercorrection at these levels led to higher rates of revision for implant failure (U: 14.2% vs. M: 7.3% vs. O: 6.4%, P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing fusion for adult spinal deformity suffer higher rates of PJF with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine if spinal deformity patients with L5 sacralization should have pelvic incidence (PI) and other spinopelvic parameters measured from the L5 or S1 endplate. METHODS:This study was a multicenter retrospective comparative cohort study comprising a large database of adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients and a database of asymptomatic individuals. Linear regression modeling was used to determine normative T1 pelvic angle (TPA) and PI - lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch (PI-LL) based on PI and age in a database of asymptomatic subjects. In an ASD database, patients with radiographic evidence of L5 sacralization had the PI, LL, and TPA measured from the superior endplate of S1 and then also from L5. The differences in TPA and PI-LL from normative were calculated in the sacralization cohort relative to L5 and S1 and correlated to the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patients were grouped based on the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab PI-LL modifier (0, +, or ++) using the L5 PI-LL and S1 PI-LL. Baseline ODI and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores were compared across and within groups. RESULTS:Among 1179 ASD patients, 276 (23.4%) had transitional anatomy, 176 with sacralized L5 (14.9%) and 100 (8.48%) with lumbarization of S1. The 176 patients with sacralized L5 were analyzed. When measured using the L5 superior endplate, pelvic parameters were significantly smaller than those measured relative to S1 (PI: 24.5° ± 11.0° vs 55.7° ± 12.0°, p = 0.001;TPA: 11.2° ± 12.0° vs 20.3° ± 12.5°, p = 0.001; and PI-LL: 0.67° ± 21.1° vs 11.4° ± 20.8°, p = 0.001). When measured from S1, 76 (43%), 45 (25.6%), and 55 (31.3%) patients had SRS-Schwab PI-LL modifiers of 0, +, and ++, respectively, compared with 124 (70.5%), 22 (12.5%), and 30 (17.0%), respectively, when measured from L5. There were significant differences in ODI and PCS scores as the SRS-Schwab grade increased regardless of L5 or S1 measurement. The L5 group had lower PCS functional scores for SRS-Schwab modifiers 0 and ++ relative to same grades in the S1 group. Offset from normative TPA (0.5° ± 11.1° vs 9.6° ± 10.8°, p = 0.001) and PI-LL (4.5° ± 20.4° vs 15.2° ± 19.3°, p = 0.001) were smaller when measuring from L5. Moreover, S1 measurements were more correlated with health status by ODI (TPA offset from normative: S1, R = 0.326 vs L5, R = 0.285; PI-LL offset from normative: S1, R = 0.318 vs L5, R = 0.274). CONCLUSIONS:Measuring the PI and spinopelvic parameters at L5 in sacralized anatomy results in underestimating spinal deformity and is less correlated with health-related quality of life. Surgeons may consider measuring PI and spinopelvic parameters relative to S1 rather than at L5 in patients with a sacralized L5.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective single-center study. BACKGROUND:The global alignment and proportion score is widely used in adult spinal deformity surgery. However, it is not specific to the parameters used in adult cervical deformity (ACD). PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Create a cervicothoracic alignment and proportion (CAP) score in patients with operative ACD. METHODS:Patients with ACD with 2-year data were included. Parameters consisted of relative McGregor's Slope [RMGS = (MGS × 1.5)/0.9], relative cervical lordosis [RCL = CL - thoracic kyphosis (TK)], Cervical Lordosis Distribution Index (CLDI = C2 - Apex × 100/C2 - T2), relative pelvic version (RPV = sacral slope - pelvic incidence × 0.59 + 9), and a frailty factor (greater than 0.33). Cutoff points were chosen where the cross-tabulation of parameter subgroups reached a maximal rate of meeting the Optimal Outcome. The optimal outcome was defined as meeting Good Clinical Outcome criteria without the occurrence of distal junctional failure (DJF) or reoperation. CAP was scored between 0 and 13 and categorized accordingly: ≤3 (proportioned), 4-6 (moderately disproportioned), >6 (severely disproportioned). Multivariable logistic regression analysis determined the relationship between CAP categories, overall score, and development of distal junctional kyphosis (DJK), DJF, reoperation, and Optimal Outcome by 2 years. RESULTS:One hundred five patients with operative ACD were included. Assessment of the 3-month CAP score found a mean of 5.2/13 possible points. 22.7% of patients were proportioned, 49.5% moderately disproportioned, and 27.8% severely disproportioned. DJK occurred in 34.5% and DJF in 8.7%, 20.0% underwent reoperation, and 55.7% achieved Optimal Outcome. Patients severely disproportioned in CAP had higher odds of DJK [OR: 6.0 (2.1-17.7); P =0.001], DJF [OR: 9.7 (1.8-51.8); P =0.008], reoperation [OR: 3.3 (1.9-10.6); P =0.011], and lower odds of meeting the optimal outcome [OR: 0.3 (0.1-0.7); P =0.007] by 2 years, while proportioned patients suffered zero occurrences of DJK or DJF. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The regional alignment and proportion score is a method of analyzing the cervical spine relative to global alignment and demonstrates the importance of maintaining horizontal gaze, while also matching overall cervical and thoracolumbar alignment to limit complications and maximize clinical improvement.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of an adult deformity database. OBJECTIVE:To identify Pelvic Incidence (PI) and age-appropriate physical function alignment targets using a component angle of T1- Pelvic Angle (TPA) within the fusion to define correction and their relationship to proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and clinical outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:In preoperative planning, a patient's PI is often utilized to determine alignment target. In a trend toward more patient specific planning, age-specific alignment has been shown to reduce the risk of mechanical failures. PI and age have not been analyzed with respect to defining a functional alignment. METHODS:A database of patients with operative adult spinal deformity (ASD) was analyzed. Patients fused to the pelvis and upper-instrumented vertebrae (UIV) above T11 were included. Alignment within the fusion correlated with clinical outcomes and PI. Short form 36-physical Component score (SF36-PCS) normative data and PI were used to compute functional alignment for each patient. Over-, under-, and functionally corrected groups were determined using T10-pelvic angle (T10PA). RESULTS:1052 patients met inclusion criteria. T10PA correlated with SF36-PCS and PI (R=0.601). At 6 weeks, 40.7% were functionally corrected, 39.4% were overcorrected, and 20.9% were under-corrected. The PJK incidence rate was 13.6%. Overcorrected patients had the highest PJK rate (18.1%) compared with functionally (11.3%) and under-corrected (9.5%) patients (P<0.05). Overcorrected patients had a trend toward more PJK revisions. All groups improved in HRQL; however, under-corrected patients had the worst 1-year SF36-PCS offset relative to normative patients of equivalent age (-8.1) vs. functional (-6.1) and overcorrected (-4.5), P<0.05. CONCLUSIONS:T10PA was used to determine functional alignment, an alignment based on PI and age-appropriate physical function. Correcting patients to functional alignment produced improvements in clinical outcomes, with the lowest rates of PJK. This patient specific approach to spinal alignment provides ASD correction targets that can be used intraoperatively.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Multi-centre retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery. BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without patient repositioning. This study examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF against traditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning. METHOD/METHODS:A multi-centre retrospective cohort study involving patients undergoing 1-4 level LLIF surgery was performed at 4 institutions in the USA and Australia. Patients were included if their surgery was performed via either: P-LLIF with revision posterior fusion; or L-LLIF with repositioning to prone. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at P <0.05. RESULTS:101 patients undergoing revision LLIF surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs. 2.66 L-LLIF, P =0.469) and number of LLIF levels (1.35 vs. 1.39, P =0.668) was similar between groups. Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group (151 vs. 206 min, P =0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150 mL P-LLIF vs. 182 mL L-LLIF, P =0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay in the P-LLIF group (2.7 vs. 3.3 d, P =0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in complications between groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment measurements. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency when compared to L-LLIF for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level IV.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The International Spine Study Group-AO (ISSG-AO) Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) Complication Classification System was developed to improve classification, reporting, and study of complications among patients undergoing ASD surgery. The ISSG-AO system classifies interventions to address complications by level of invasiveness: grade zero (none); grade 1, mild (e.g., medication change); grade 2, moderate (e.g., ICU admission); grade 3, severe (e.g., reoperation related to surgery of interest). To evaluate the efficacy of the ISSG-AO ASD Complication Classification System, we aimed to compare correlations between postoperative length of stay (LOS) and complication severity as classified by the ISSG-AO ASD and traditional major/minor complication classification systems. METHODS:Patients age ≥18 in a multicenter ASD database who sustained in-hospital complications were identified. Complications were classified with the major/minor and ISSG-AO systems and correlated with LOS using an ensemble-based machine learning algorithm (conditional random forest) and a generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS:490 patients at 19 sites were included. 64.9% of complications were major, and 35.1% were minor. By ISSG-AO classification, 20.4%, 66.1%, 6.7%, and 6.7% were grades 0-3, respectively. ISSG-AO complication grading demonstrated significant correlation with LOS, whereas major/minor complication classification demonstrated inverse correlation with LOS. In conditional random forest analysis, ISSG-AO classification had the greatest relative importance when assessing correlations across multiple variables with LOS. CONCLUSIONS:The ISSG-AO system may help identify specific complications associated with prolonged LOS. Targeted interventions to avoid or reduce these complications may improve ASD surgical quality and resource utilization.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Multicenter comparative cohort. OBJECTIVE:Studies have shown markedly higher rates of complications and all-cause mortality following surgery for adult cervical deformity (ACD) compared with adult thoracolumbar deformity (ATLD), though the reasons for these differences remain unclear. Our objectives were to compare baseline frailty, disability, and comorbidities between ACD and complex ATLD patients undergoing surgery. METHODS:Two multicenter prospective adult spinal deformity registries were queried, one ATLD and one ACD. Baseline clinical and frailty measures were compared between the cohorts. RESULTS:< .001). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with ATLD patients, ACD patients had worse baseline characteristics on all measures assessed (comorbidities/disability/frailty). These differences may help account for greater risk of complications and all-cause mortality previously observed in ACD patients and facilitate strategies for better preoperative optimization.

OBJECTIVE:Multiple rods are utilized in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery to increase construct stiffness. However, the impact of multiple rods on proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) is not well established. This study aimed to investigate the impact of multiple rods on PJK incidence in ASD patients. METHODS:ASD patients from a prospective multicenter database with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical and radiographic data were collected preoperatively, at 6 weeks postoperatively, at 6 months postoperatively, at 1 year postoperatively, and at every subsequent year postoperatively. PJK was defined as a kyphotic increase of > 10° in the Cobb angle from the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) to UIV+2 as compared with preoperative values. Demographic data, radiographic parameters, and PJK incidence were compared between the multirod and dual-rod patient cohorts. PJK-free survival analysis was performed using Cox regression to control for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, level of fusion, and radiographic parameters. RESULTS:Overall, 307/1300 (23.62%) cases utilized multiple rods. Cases with multiple rods were more likely to be revisions (68.4% vs 46.5%, p < 0.001), to be posterior only (80.7% vs 61.5%, p < 0.001), involve more levels of fusion (mean 11.73 vs 10.60, p < 0.001), and include 3-column osteotomy (42.9% vs 17.1%, p < 0.001). Patients with multiple rods also had greater preoperative pelvic retroversion (mean pelvic tilt 27.95° vs 23.58°, p < 0.001), greater thoracolumbar junction kyphosis (-15.9° vs -11.9°, p = 0.001), and more severe sagittal malalignment (C7-S1 sagittal vertical axis 99.76 mm vs 62.23 mm, p < 0.001), all of which corrected postoperatively. Patients with multiple rods had similar incidence rates of PJK (58.6% vs 58.1%) and revision surgery (13.0% vs 17.7%). The PJK-free survival analysis demonstrated equivalent PJK-free survival durations among the patients with multiple rods (HR 0.889, 95% CI 0.745-1.062, p = 0.195) after controlling for demographic and radiographic parameters. Further stratification based on implant metal type demonstrated noninferior PJK incidence rates with multiple rods in the titanium (57.1% vs 54.6%, p = 0.858), cobalt chrome (60.5% vs 58.7%, p = 0.646), and stainless steel (20% vs 63.7%, p = 0.008) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS:Multirod constructs for ASD are most frequently utilized in revision, long-level reconstructions with 3-column osteotomy. The use of multiple rods in ASD surgery does not result in an increased incidence of PJK and is not affected by rod metal type.

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to calibrate an updated predictive model incorporating novel clinical, radiographic, and prophylactic measures to assess the risk of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and failure (PJF). METHODS:Operative patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) and baseline and 2-year postoperative data were included. PJK was defined as ≥ 10° in sagittal Cobb angle between the inferior uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) endplate and superior endplate of the UIV + 2 vertebrae. PJF was radiographically defined as a proximal junctional sagittal Cobb angle ≥ 15° with the presence of structural failure and/or mechanical instability, or PJK with reoperation. Backstep conditional binary supervised learning models assessed baseline demographic, clinical, and surgical information to predict the occurrence of PJK and PJF. Internal cross validation of the model was performed via a 70%/30% cohort split. Conditional inference tree analysis determined thresholds at an alpha level of 0.05. RESULTS:Seven hundred seventy-nine patients with ASD (mean 59.87 ± 14.24 years, 78% female, mean BMI 27.78 ± 6.02 kg/m2, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 1.74 ± 1.71) were included. PJK developed in 50.2% of patients, and 10.5% developed PJF by their last recorded visit. The six most significant demographic, radiographic, surgical, and postoperative predictors of PJK/PJF were baseline age ≥ 74 years, baseline sagittal age-adjusted score (SAAS) T1 pelvic angle modifier > 1, baseline SAAS pelvic tilt modifier > 0, levels fused > 10, nonuse of prophylaxis measures, and 6-week SAAS pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis modifier > 1 (all p < 0.015). Overall, the model was deemed significant (p < 0.001), and internally validated receiver operating characteristic analysis returned an area under the curve of 0.923, indicating robust model fit. CONCLUSIONS:PJK and PJF remain critical concerns in ASD surgery, and efforts to reduce the occurrence of PJK and PJF have resulted in the development of novel prophylactic techniques and enhanced clinical and radiographic selection criteria. This study demonstrates a validated model incorporating such techniques that may allow for the prediction of clinically significant PJK and PJF, and thus assist in optimizing patient selection, enhancing intraoperative decision making, and reducing postoperative complications in ASD surgery.