Faculty Bibliography

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.

OBJECTIVE:Depression has been implicated with worse immediate postoperative outcomes in adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction, yet the specific impact of depression on those patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) requires further clarity. This study aimed to evaluate the role of depression in the recovery of patients with ASD after undergoing MIS. METHODS:Patients who underwent MIS for ASD with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 1 year were included from a prospectively collected, multicenter registry. Two cohorts of patients were identified that consisted of either those affirming or denying depression on preoperative assessment. The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared included scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) for back and leg pain, Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Questionnaire (SRS-22), SF-36 physical component summary, SF-36 mental component summary (MCS), EQ-5D, and EQ-5D visual analog scale. RESULTS:Twenty-seven of 147 (18.4%) patients screened positive for preoperative depression. The nondepressed cohort had an average of 4.83 levels fused, and the depressed cohort had 5.56 levels fused per patient (p = 0.267). At 1-year follow-up, 10 patients still reported depression, representing a 63% decrease. Postoperatively, both cohorts demonstrated improvement in their PROMs; however, at 1-year follow-up, those without depression had statistically better outcomes based on the EQ-5D, MCS, and SRS-22 scores (p < 0.05). Patients with depression continued to experience higher NRS leg scores at 1-year follow-up (3.63 vs 2.22, p = 0.018). After controlling for covariates, the authors found that depression significantly impacted only 1-year follow-up MCS scores (β = 8.490, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Depressed and nondepressed patients reported similar improvements after MIS surgery, except MCS scores were more likely to improve in nondepressed patients.

OBJECTIVE:Provide benchmarks for the rates of complications by type and timing. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective multicenter database. BACKGROUND:Complication rates following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery have been previously reported. However, the interplay between timing and complication type warrants further analysis. METHODS:The data for this study were sourced from a prospective, multicenter ASD database. Date and type of complication were collected and classified into three severity groups (minor, major, major leading to reoperation). Only complications occurring before the 2-year visit were retained for analysis. RESULTS:Of the 1260 patients eligible for 2-year follow-up, 997 (79.1%) achieved 2-year follow-up. The overall complication rate was 67.4% (N=672). 247 patients (24.8%) experienced at least one complication on the day of surgery (including intra-operatively), 359 (36.0%) between post-op day 1 and 6 weeks post-op, 271 (27.2%) between 6 weeks and 1 one -year post-op, and finally 162 (16.3%) between 1 year and 2 years post-op. Using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the rate of remaining complication-free was estimated at different time points for different severities and types of complications. Stratification by type of complication demonstrated that most of the medical complications occurred within the first 60 days. Surgical complications presented over two distinct timeframes. Operative complications, incision-related complications, and infections occurred early (within 60 d), while implant-related and radiographic complications occurred at a constant rate over the 2-year follow-up period. Neurologic complications had the highest occurrence within the first 60 days but continued to increase up to the 2-year visit. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Only one-third of ASD patients remained complication-free by 2 years, and 2 out of 10 patients had a complication requiring a reoperation or revision. Estimation of timing and type of complication associated with surgical treatment may prove useful for more meaningful patient counseling and aid in assessing the cost-effectiveness of treatment.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the effect of lower extremity osteoarthritis on sagittal alignment and compensatory mechanisms in adult spinal deformity (ASD). BACKGROUND:Spine, hip, and knee pathologies often overlap in ASD patients. Limited data exists on how lower extremity osteoarthritis impacts sagittal alignment and compensatory mechanisms in ASD. METHODS:527 pre-operative ASD patients with full body radiographs were included. Patients were grouped by Kellgren-Lawrence grade of bilateral hips and knees and stratified by quartile of T1-Pelvic Angle (T1PA) severity into low-, mid-, high-, and severe-T1PA. Full body alignment and compensation were compared across quartiles. Regression analysis examined the incremental impact of hip and knee osteoarthritis severity on compensation. RESULTS:The mean T1PA for low-, mid-, high-, and severe-T1PA groups was 7.3°, 19.5°, 27.8°, 41.6°, respectively. Mid-T1PA patients with severe hip osteoarthritis had an increased sagittal vertical axis and global sagittal alignment (P<0.001). Increasing hip osteoarthritis severity resulted in decreased pelvic tilt (P=0.001) and sacrofemoral angle (P<0.001), but increased knee flexion (P=0.012). Regression analysis revealed with increasing T1PA, pelvic tilt correlated inversely with hip osteoarthritis and positively with knee osteoarthritis (r2=0.812). Hip osteoarthritis decreased compensation via sacrofemoral angle (β-coefficient=-0.206). Knee and hip osteoarthritis contributed to greater knee flexion (β-coefficients=0.215, 0.101; respectively). For pelvic shift, only hip osteoarthritis significantly contributed to the model (β-coefficient=0.100). CONCLUSIONS:For the same magnitude of spinal deformity, increased hip osteoarthritis severity was associated with worse truncal and full body alignment with posterior translation of the pelvis. Patients with severe hip and knee osteoarthritis exhibited decreased hip extension and pelvic tilt, but increased knee flexion. This examines sagittal alignment and compensation in ASD patients with hip and knee arthritis and may help delineate whether hip and knee flexion is due to spinal deformity compensation or lower extremity osteoarthritis.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE:To analyze the impact of operative room (OR) time in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery on patient outcomes. BACKGROUND:It is currently unknown if OR time in ASD patients matched for deformity severity and surgical invasiveness is associated with patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:ASD patients with baseline and two-year postoperative radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) data, undergoing a posterior-only approach for long fusion (>L1-Ilium) were included. Patients were grouped into short OR time (<40th percentile: <359 min) and long OR time (>60th percentile: >421 min). Groups were matched by age, baseline deformity severity, and surgical invasiveness. Demographics, radiographic, PROM data, fusion rate, and complications were compared between groups at baseline and two years follow-up. RESULTS:In total, 270 patients were included for analysis: the mean OR time was 286 minutes in the short OR group versus 510 minutes in the long OR group ( P <0.001). Age, gender, percent of revision cases, surgical invasiveness, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis, sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic tilt were comparable between groups ( P >0.05). Short OR had a slightly lower body mass index than the short OR group ( P <0.001) and decompression was more prevalent in the long OR time ( P =0.042). Patients in the long group had greater hospital length of stay ( P =0.02); blood loss ( P <0.001); proportion requiring intensive care unit ( P =0.003); higher minor complication rate ( P =0.001); with no significant differences for major complications or revision procedures ( P >0.5). Both groups had comparable radiographic fusion rates ( P =0.152) and achieved improvement in sagittal alignment measures, Oswestry disability index, and Short Form-36 ( P <0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Shorter OR time for ASD correction is associated with a lower minor complication rate, a lower estimated blood loss, fewer intensive care unit admissions, and a shorter hospital length of stay without sacrificing alignment correction or PROMs. Maximizing operative efficiency by minimizing OR time in ASD surgery has the potential to benefit patients, surgeons, and hospital systems.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study. BACKGROUND:Little is known of the intersection between surgical invasiveness, cervical deformity (CD) severity, and frailty. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of CD surgery by invasiveness, frailty status, and baseline magnitude of deformity. METHODS:This study included CD patients with 1-year follow-up. Patients stratified in high deformity if severe in the following criteria: T1 slope minus cervical lordosis, McGregor's slope, C2-C7, C2-T3, and C2 slope. Frailty scores categorized patients into not frail and frail. Patients are categorized by frailty and deformity (not frail/low deformity; not frail/high deformity; frail/low deformity; frail/high deformity). Logistic regression assessed increasing invasiveness and outcomes [distal junctional failure (DJF), reoperation]. Within frailty/deformity groups, decision tree analysis assessed thresholds for an invasiveness cutoff above which experiencing a reoperation, DJF or not achieving Good Clinical Outcome was more likely. RESULTS:A total of 115 patients were included. Frailty/deformity groups: 27% not frail/low deformity, 27% not frail/high deformity, 23.5% frail/low deformity, and 22.5% frail/high deformity. Logistic regression analysis found increasing invasiveness and occurrence of DJF [odds ratio (OR): 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05, P =0.002], and invasiveness increased with deformity severity ( P <0.05). Not frail/low deformity patients more often met Optimal Outcome with an invasiveness index <63 (OR: 27.2, 95% CI: 2.7-272.8, P =0.005). An invasiveness index <54 for the frail/low deformity group led to a higher likelihood of meeting the Optimal Outcome (OR: 9.6, 95% CI: 1.5-62.2, P =0.018). For the frail/high deformity group, patients with a score <63 had a higher likelihood of achieving Optimal Outcome (OR: 4.8, 95% CI: 1.1-25.8, P =0.033). There was no significant cutoff of invasiveness for the not frail/high deformity group. CONCLUSIONS:Our study correlated increased invasiveness in CD surgery to the risk of DJF, reoperation, and poor clinical success. The thresholds derived for deformity severity and frailty may enable surgeons to individualize the invasiveness of their procedures during surgical planning to account for the heightened risk of adverse events and minimize unfavorable outcomes.

Adult cervical deformity is a structural malalignment of the cervical spine that may present with variety of significant symptomatology for patients. There are clear and substantial negative impacts of cervical spine deformity, including the increased burden of pain, limited mobility and functionality, and interference with patients' ability to work and perform everyday tasks. Primary cervical deformities develop as the result of a multitude of different etiologies, changing the normal mechanics and structure of the cervical region. In particular, degeneration of the cervical spine, inflammatory arthritides and neuromuscular changes are significant players in the development of disease. Additionally, cervical deformities, sometimes iatrogenically, may present secondary to malalignment or correction of the thoracic, lumbar or sacropelvic spine. Previously, classification systems were developed to help quantify disease burden and influence management of thoracic and lumbar spine deformities. Following up on these works and based on the relationship between the cervical and distal spine, Ames-ISSG developed a framework for a standardized tool for characterizing and quantifying cervical spine deformities. When surgical intervention is required to correct a cervical deformity, there are advantages and disadvantages to both anterior and posterior approaches. A stepwise approach may minimize the drawbacks of either an anterior or posterior approach alone, and patients should have a surgical plan tailored specifically to their cervical deformity based upon symptomatic and radiographic indications. This state-of-the-art review is based upon a comprehensive overview of literature seeking to highlight the normal cervical spine, etiologies of cervical deformity, current classification systems, and key surgical techniques.

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.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Achieving spinopelvic realignment during adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery does not always produce ideal outcomes. Little is known whether compensation in lower extremities (LEs) plays a role in this disassociation. The objective is to analyze lower extremity compensation after complex ASD surgery, its effect on outcomes, and whether correction can alleviate these mechanisms. METHODS:We included patients with complex ASD with 6-week data. LE parameters were as follows: sacrofemoral angle, knee flexion angle, and ankle flexion angle. Each parameter was ranked, and upper tertile was deemed compensation. Patients compensating and not compensating postoperatively were propensity score matched for body mass index, frailty, and T1 pelvic angle. Linear regression assessed correlation between LE parameters and baseline deformity, demographics, and surgical details. Multivariate analysis controlling for baseline deformity and history of total knee/hip arthroplasty evaluated outcomes. RESULTS:Two hundred and ten patients (age: 61.3 ± 14.1 years, body mass index: 27.4 ± 5.8 kg/m2, Charlson Comorbidity Index: 1.1 ± 1.6, 72% female, 22% previous total joint arthroplasty, 24% osteoporosis, levels fused: 13.1 ± 3.8) were included. At baseline, 59% were compensating in LE: 32% at hips, 39% knees, and 36% ankles. After correction, 61% were compensating at least one joint. Patients undercorrected postoperatively were less likely to relieve LE compensation (odds ratio: 0.2, P = .037). Patients compensating in LE were more often undercorrected in age-adjusted pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, and T1 pelvic angle and disproportioned in Global Alignment and Proportion (P < .05). Patients matched in sagittal age-adjusted score at 6 weeks but compensating in LE were more likely to develop proximal junctional kyphosis (odds ratio: 4.1, P = .009) and proximal junctional failure (8% vs 0%, P = .035) than those sagittal age-adjusted score-matched and not compensating in LE. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Perioperative lower extremity compensation was a product of undercorrecting complex ASD. Even in age-adjusted realignment, compensation was associated with global undercorrection and junctional failure. Consideration of lower extremities during planning is vital to avoid adverse outcomes in perioperative course after complex ASD surgery.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE:Evaluate surgical characteristics and postoperative 2-year results of the PL approach to spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Prone-lateral(PL) single positioning has recently gained popularity in spine surgery due to lower blood loss and operative time but has yet to be examined for other notable outcomes, including realignment and patient-reported measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We included circumferential spine fusion patients with a minimum one-year follow-up. Patients were stratified into groups based on undergoing PL approach versus same-day staged (Staged). Mean comparison tests identified differences in baseline parameters. Multivariable logistic regression, controlling for age, levels fused, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were used to determine the influence of the approach on complication rates, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes up to two years. RESULTS:One hundred twenty-two patients were included of which 72(59%) were same-day staged and 50(41%) were PL. PL patients were older with lower body mass index (both P <0.05). Patients undergoing PL procedures had lower estimated blood loss and operative time (both P <0.001), along with fewer osteotomies (63% vs. 91%, P <0.001). This translated to a shorter length of stay (3.8 d vs. 4.9, P =0.041). PL procedures demonstrated better correction in both PT (4.0 vs. -0.2, P =0.033 and pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (-3.7 vs. 3.1, P =0.012). PL procedures were more likely to improve in GAP relative pelvic version (OR: 2.3, [1.5-8.8]; P =0.003]. PL patients suffered lesser complications during the perioperative period and greater improvement in NRS-Back (-6.0 vs. -3.3, P =0.031), with less reoperations (0.0% vs. 4.8%, P =0.040) by two years. CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing PL single-position procedures received less invasive procedures with better correction of pelvic compensation, as well as earlier discharge. The prone lateral cohort also demonstrated greater clinical improvement and a lower rate of reoperations by two years following spinal corrective surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level-III.