Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of three prospectively collected databases. OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative outcomes in Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) surgeries in a surgeon-run (SR-ASD) and two national databases: the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Much has been learned on the treatment of ASD in the last decade with prospective multicenter collaborative research focusing on this specific condition. Nondisease specific national databases are being used for hypothesis and quality control testing on a large number of ASD patients. Their accuracy and applicability remains unevaluated. METHODS: Patients were identified on each respective database undergoing lumbar spine fusion for ASD. Propensity score matching established cohorts of patients on each database with similar procedures being performed. Complication prevalence and relative risk was compared on the NIS and NSQIP against SR-ASD. Secondary outcome measures included hospital-stay characteristics, surgical invasiveness, patient demographics, and patient comorbidities. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five patients were identified on each database 1:1:1 with similar overall surgical intensity. Querying the databases using ICD-9 codes, CPT codes, and surgeon-reports resulted in different complication incidences: overall complication rates were 17.65% on NIS, 24.31% on NSQIP, and 68.24% on SR-ASD. The relative risk of a medical complication in SR-ASD was 1.87 (1.42-2.48) relative to NIS and 1.91 (1.44-2.54) relative to NSQIP. The relative risk of a surgical complication was 5.45 (2.69-11.05) compared with NIS and 12.05 (3.98-36.49) compared with NSQIP. CONCLUSION: After selecting patients using the same criteria and diagnosis, NIS, NSQIP, and SR-ASD databases captured different patient populations and different complication incidences. There were total absences of certain complications contrary to usual literature rates in all three databases. Faithful reporting necessitates understanding database limitations, and careful evaluation of database strengths and weaknesses is paramount to accurate reports. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Objectives: Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and related hip pathology is increasing in volume. Variable presentations of hip pain often lead to confusion with lumbar spine pathology however. We sought to define the relationship between the lumbar spine and the hip joint. Our hypothesis is that patients with concurrent lumbar spine pathology will experience inferior outcomes after hip arthroscopy when compared to patients without lumbar spine pathology. Methods: Prospectively-collected data from a single-surgeon database from 2010 to 2014 was used to identify patients who had undergone hip arthroscopy and had documented concurrent lumbar spine pathology. Patients with spine pathology were matched by age, gender, and BMI in a 3:1 fashion to patients without spine pathology. Baseline pre-operative modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) were compared to scores at two-year follow-up. "Poor outcome" of initial hip arthroscopy was defined as any combination of: requiring a revision procedure, conversion to THA, or mHHS below 70. Results: 167 patients met inclusion criteria: 72.5% were "normal" while 27.5% had spine pathology. Baseline demographics were appropriately matched between cohorts (Table I). Preoperative and two-year mHHS scores were significantly different between cohorts (Figure 1). Both cohorts demonstrated significant within-group improvement at two-year follow-up, however normal patients had greater improvements than those with spine pathology (34.0 vs 31.76, p<0.001). Overall revision/THA conversion rate for entire cohort was 14.97%, with nearly twice as many spine co-pathology patients requiring additional surgery than those in the normal cohort (23.91% vs 11.57%, p=0.045). Patients with spine pathology were significantly more likely to have "poor outcomes" than those without spine pathology (36.96% vs 21.49%, p=0.048). Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with concomitant lumbar spine pathology demonstrate significantly lower total improvement, significantly higher revision/THA conversion rates and significantly higher rates of suboptimal outcomes after hip arthroscopy than patients without spine pathology. (Table Presented) (Figure Presented)

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical and radiographic single-center study OBJECTIVE.: Assess simultaneous cervical spine and lower extremity compensatory changes with changes in thoracolumbar spinal alignment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Full-body stereoradiographic imaging allows better understanding of reciprocal changes in cervical and lower extremity alignment in the setting of thoracolumbar malalignment. Few studies describe the simultaneous effect of alignment correction on these mechanisms. METHODS: Patients >/=18 years undergoing instrumented thoracolumbar fusion without previous cervical spine fusion, hip, knee or ankle arthroplasty were included. Spinopelvic, lower extremity and cervical alignment were assessed from full-body standing stereoradiographs using validated software. Patients were matched for pelvic incidence and stratified based on baseline T1-pelvic angle (TPA) as: TPA-Low <14 degrees , TPA-Moderate =14-22 degrees and TPA-High >22 degrees . Perioperative changes between baseline and first postoperative visit <6 months in lower extremity alignment (pelvic shift: P Shift, sacrofemoral angle: SFA, Knee Angle: KA, Ankle Angle: AA, global sagittal axis: GSA) and cervical alignment (C0-C2 angle, C2-slope, C2-C7 lordosis and C2-C7 SVA:cSVA) were correlated with change in magnitude of TPA and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) correction. RESULTS: After matching, 87 patients were assessed. Increasing baseline TPA severity associated with a progressive increase in all regional spinopelvic parameters except thoracic kyphosis, in addition to increased SFA, P Shift, KA, GSA, and C2-C7 lordosis. As TPA correction increased, there was a reciprocal reduction in SFA, KA, P Shift, GSA and C2-C7 lordosis. Change in SVA correlated most with change in GSA (r = 0.886), P Shift (r = 0.601), KA (r = 0.534) and C2-C7 lordosis (r = 0.467). Change in TPA correlated with change in SFA (r = 0.372) while SVA did not. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with thoracolumbar malalignment exhibit compensatory changes in cervical spine and lower extremity simultaneously in the form of cervical hyperlordosis, pelvic shift, knee flexion, and pelvic retroversion. These compensatory mechanisms resolve reciprocally in a linear fashion following optimal surgical correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

BACKGROUND: Changes in spinal alignment and pelvic tilt alter acetabular orientation in predictable ways, which may have implications on stability of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients with sagittal spinal deformity represent a subset of patients who may be at particularly high risk of THA instability because of postural compensation for abnormal spinal alignment. METHODS: Using standing stereoradiography, we evaluated the spinopelvic parameters, acetabular cup anteversion, and inclination of 139 THAs in 107 patients with sagittal spinal deformity. Standing images were compared with supine pelvic radiographs to evaluate dynamic changes in acetabular cup position. Dislocation and revision rates were procured through retrospective chart review. The spinal parameters and acetabular cup positions among dislocators were compared with those who did not dislocate. RESULTS: The rate of THA dislocation in this cohort was 8.0%, with a revision rate of 5.8% for instability. Patients who sustained dislocations had significantly higher spinopelvic tilt, T1-pelvic angle, and mismatch of lumbar lordosis and pelvic incidence. Among all patients, 78% had safe anteversion while supine, which decreased significantly to 58% when standing due to increases in spinopelvic tilt. Among dislocating THA, 80% had safe anteversion, 80% had safe inclination, and 60% had both parameters within the safe zone. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, patients with THA and concomitant spinal deformity have a particularly high rate of THA instability despite having an acetabular cup position traditionally thought of as within acceptable alignment. This dislocation risk may be driven by the degree of spinal deformity and by spinopelvic compensation. Surgeons should anticipate potential instability after hip arthroplasty and adjust their surgical plan accordingly.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar-pelvic fusion reduces the variation in pelvic tilt in functional situations by reducing lumbar spine flexibility, which is thought to be important in maintaining stability of a total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared dislocation and revision rates for patients with lumbar fusion and subsequent THA to a matched comparison cohort with hip and spine degenerative changes undergoing only THA. METHODS: We identified patients in New York State who underwent primary elective lumbar fusion for degenerative disc disease pathology and subsequent THA between January 2005 and December 2012. A propensity score match was performed to compare 934 patients with prior lumbar fusion to 934 patients with only THA according to age, gender, race, Deyo comorbidity score, year of surgery, and surgeon volume. Revision and dislocation rates were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months post-THA. RESULTS: At 12 months, patients with prior lumbar fusion had significantly increased rates of THA dislocation (control: 0.4%; fusion: 3.0%; P < .001) and revision (control: 0.9%; fusion: 3.9%; P < .001). At 12 months, fusion patients were 7.19 times more likely to dislocate their THA (P < .001) and 4.64 times more likely to undergo revision (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing lumbar fusion and subsequent THA have significantly higher risks of dislocation and revision of their hip arthroplasty than a matched cohort of patients with similar hip and spine pathology but only undergoing THA. During preoperative consultation for patients with prior lumbar fusion, orthopedic surgeons must educate the patient and family about the increased risk of dislocation and revision.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Obesity's impact on standing sagittal alignment remains poorly understood, especially with respect to the role of the lower-limbs. Given energetic expenditure in standing, a complete understanding of compensation in obese patients with sagittal malalignment remains relevant. PURPOSE: This study compares obese and non-obese patients with progressive sagittal malalignment for differences in recruitment of pelvic and lower limb mechanisms. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single center retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLE: 554 patients (277 obese, 277 non-obese) identified for analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Upper body alignment parameters: sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and T1 spino-pelvic inclination (T1SPi). Compensatory lower-limb mechanisms: pelvic translation (PS: pelvic shift), knee (KA) and ankle (AA) flexion, hip extension (SFA: sacrofemoral angle), and global sagittal angle (GSA). METHODS: Inclusion criteria were patients>/=18 years that underwent full body stereographic x-rays. Included patients were categorized as non-obese (N-Ob: BMI<30 kg/m2) and obese (Ob: BMI>/=30 kg/m2). To control for potential confounders, groups were propensity score matched by age, gender and baseline pelvic incidence (PI), and subsequently categorized by increasing spino-pelvic (PI-LL) mismatch: <10 degrees , 10 degrees -20 degrees , >20 degrees . Independent t-tests and linear regression models compared sagittal (SVA, T1SPi) and lower limb (PS, KA, AA, SFA, GSA) parameters between obesity cohorts. RESULTS: 554 patients (277 Ob, 277 N-Ob) were included for analysis, and were stratified to the following mismatch categories: <10 degrees : n=367; 10 degrees -20 degrees : n=91; >20 degrees : n=96. Ob patients had higher SVA, KA, PS and GSA compared to N-Ob (p<0.001 all). Low PI-LL mismatch Ob patients had greater SVA with lower SFA (142.22 degrees vs. 156.66 degrees , p=0.032), higher KA (5.22 degrees vs. 2.93 degrees , p=0.004) and PS (4.91 vs. -5.20 mm, p<0.001) compared to N-Ob. With moderate PI-LL mismatch, Ob patients similarly demonstrated greater SVA, KA, and PS, combined with significantly lower PT (23.69 degrees vs. 27.14 degrees , p=0.012). Obese patients of highest (>20 degrees ) PI-LL mismatch showed greatest forward malalignment (SVA, T1SPi) with significantly greater PS, and a concomitantly high GSA (12.86 degrees vs. 9.67 degrees , p=0.005). Regression analysis for lower-limb compensation revealed that increasing BMI and PI-LL predicted KA (r2=0.234) and GSA (r2=0.563). CONCLUSIONS: With progressive sagittal malalignment, obese patients differentially recruit lower extremity compensatory mechanisms while non-obese preferentially recruit pelvic mechanisms. The ability to compensate for progressive sagittal malalignment with the pelvic retroversion is limited by obesity.

AIMS: Lumbar fusion is known to reduce the variation in pelvic tilt between standing and sitting. A flexible lumbo-pelvic unit increases the stability of total hip arthroplasty (THA) when seated by increasing anterior clearance and acetabular anteversion, thereby preventing impingement of the prosthesis. Lumbar fusion may eliminate this protective pelvic movement. The effect of lumbar fusion on the stability of total hip arthroplasty has not previously been investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Medicare database was searched for patients who had undergone THA and spinal fusion between 2005 and 2012. PearlDiver software was used to query the database by the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) procedural code for primary THA and lumbar spinal fusion. Patients who had undergone both lumbar fusion and THA were then divided into three groups: 1 to 2 levels, 3 to 7 levels and 8+ levels of fusion. The rate of dislocation in each group was established using ICD-9-CM codes. Patients who underwent THA without spinal fusion were used as a control group. Statistical significant difference between groups was tested using the chi-squared test, and significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: At one-year follow-up, 14 747 patients were found to have had a THA after lumbar spinal fusion (12 079 1 to 2 levels, 2594 3 to 7 levels, 74 8+ levels). The control group consisted of 839 004 patients. The dislocation rate in the control group was 1.55%. A higher rate of dislocation was found in patients with a spinal fusion of 1 to 2 levels (2.96%, p < 0.0001) and 3 to 7 levels (4.12%, p < 0.0001). Patients with 3 to 7 levels of fusion had a higher rate of dislocation than patients with 1 to 2 levels of fusion (odds ratio (OR) = 1.60, p < 0.0001). When groups were matched for age and gender to the unfused cohort, patients with 1 to 2 levels of fusion had an OR of 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 2.32, p < 0.001), and those with 3 to 7 levels of fusion an OR of 2.77 (CI 2.04 to 4.80, p < 0.001) for dislocation. CONCLUSION: Patients with a previous history of lumbar spinal fusion have a significantly higher rate of dislocation of their THA than age- and gender-matched patients without a lumbar spinal fusion. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:585-91.

The diagnosis and treatment of patients who have both hip and lumbar spine pathologies may be a challenge because overlapping symptoms may delay a correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Common complaints of patients who have both hip and lumbar spine pathologies include low back pain with associated buttock, groin, thigh, and, possibly, knee pain. A thorough patient history should be obtained and a complete physical examination should be performed to identify the primary source of pain. Plain and advanced imaging studies and diagnostic injections can be used to further delineate the primary pathology and guide the appropriate sequence of treatment. Both the surgeon and the patient should understand that although one pathology is managed, management of the other pathology may be necessary because of persistent pain. The recognition of both entities may help reduce the likelihood of misdiagnosis, and the management of both entities in the appropriate sequence may help reduce the likelihood of persistent symptoms.

The diagnosis and treatment of patients who have both hip and lumbar spine pathologies may be a challenge because overlapping symptoms may delay a correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Common complaints of patients who have both hip and lumbar spine pathologies include low back pain with associated buttock, groin, thigh, and, possibly, knee pain. A thorough patient history should be obtained and a complete physical examination should be performed in these patients to identify the primary source of pain. Plain and advanced imaging studies and diagnostic injections can be used to further delineate the primary pathology and guide the appropriate sequence of treatment. Both the surgeon and the patient should understand that, although one pathology is managed, the management of the other pathology may be necessary because of persistent pain. The recognition of both entities may help reduce the likelihood of misdiagnosis, and the management of both entities in the appropriate sequence may help reduce the likelihood of persistent symptoms.