Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Interplay between degenerative hip and spine conditions (Hip-Spine Syndrome [HiSS]) warrants effective communication between respective surgeons. We identified radiographic parameters to distinguish a subset of patients with HiSS by evaluating hip osteoarthritis (HOA) in patients with and without spinopelvic malalignment, categorizing patients into respective HiSS types, and comparing radiographic parameters. METHODS:All patients with full-body orthogonal radiography from 2013 to 2016 were reviewed (n = 1,389). Using sagittal/coronal hip radiographs, HOA (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade) was noted, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) > 10° was considered spinal malalignment. Patients groups included non-HiSS (PI-LL ≤ 10°/Grade 0/n = 444), Hip (PI-LL ≤ 10°/Grade 3-4/n = 78), Spine (PI-LL > 10°/Grade 0/n = 297), or Hip-Spine (PI-LL > 10°/Grade 3-4/n = 30). Parameters were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni analysis. RESULTS:HiSS Hip type patients had less hip extension capability compared with non-HiSS, Spine, and Hip-Spine type patients, reflected by lowest pelvic tilt (PT)/sagittal retroversion (11.3° versus 16.5°/29.2°/25.2°, respectively) and less hip extension per sacrofemoral angle (10.1° versus 19.5°/28.4°/23.1°, respectively) (P < 0.001), as well as 4.7° increase in anterior tilt/sagittal anteversion compared with age-matched individuals. Hip-Spine type patients had less pelvic retroversion than Spine type patients (P = 0.045); these differences were greater when referenced to age-matched individuals (P < 0.001). Hip-Spine type patients had less hip extension than Spine type patients (P = 0.013). Hip type patients had greater knee flexion than non-HiSS type patients (6.4° versus 2.6°; P < 0.001). Moreover, Hip-Spine type patients had comparable lower extremity alignment compared with Spine type patients, except for greater posterior pelvic shift. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our novel HiSS categorization used established classification methods and supported PT use to potentially improve the ability to discern HiSS types/pathologies in a subset of patients with HOA and spinal sagittal malalignment. HOA grade 3 to 4 with PT <15° are categorized as Hip type and those with PT >25° are Hip-Spine type with sagittal malalignment, which may impact acetabular arthroplasty component placement.

BACKGROUND:Congenital abnormalities when present, according to VACTERL theory, occur nonrandomly with other congenital anomalies. This study estimates the prevalence of congenital spinal anomalies, and their concurrence with other systemic anomalies. METHODS:A retrospective cohort analysis on Health care Cost and Utilization Project's Kids Inpatient Database (KID), years 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009 was performed. ICD-9 coding identified congenital anomalies of the spine and other body systems. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Overall incidence of congenital spinal abnormalities in pediatric patients, and the concurrence of spinal anomaly diagnoses with other organ system anomalies. Frequencies of congenital spine anomalies were estimated using KID hospital-and-year-adjusted weights. Poisson distribution in contingency tables tabulated concurrence of other congenital anomalies, grouped by body system. RESULTS:Of 12,039,432 patients, rates per 100,000 cases were: 9.1 hemivertebra, 4.3 Klippel-Fiel, 56.3 Chiari malformation, 52.6 tethered cord, 83.4 spina bifida, 1.2 absence of vertebra, and 6.2 diastematomyelia. Diastematomyelia had the highest concurrence of other anomalies: 70.1% of diastematomyelia patients had at least one other congenital anomaly. Next, 63.2% of hemivertebra, and 35.2% of Klippel-Fiel patients had concurrent anomalies. Of the other systems deformities cooccuring, cardiac system had the highest concurrent incidence (6.5% overall). In light of VACTERL's definition of a patient being diagnosed with at least 3 VACTERL anomalies, hemivertebra patients had the highest cooccurrence of ≥3 anomalies (31.3%). With detailed analysis of hemivertebra patients, secundum ASD (14.49%), atresia of large intestine (10.2%), renal agenesis (7.43%) frequently cooccured. CONCLUSIONS:Congenital abnormalities of the spine are associated with serious systemic anomalies that may have delayed presentations. These patients continue to be at a very high, and maybe higher than previously thought, risk for comorbidities that can cause devastating perioperative complications if not detected preoperatively, and full MRI workups should be considered in all patients with spinal abnormalities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

BACKGROUND:Congenital scoliosis (CS) is associated with more rigid, complex deformities relative to adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) which theoretically increases surgical complications. Despite extensive literature studying AIS patients, few studies have been performed on CS patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate complications associated with spinal fusions for CS and AIS. METHODS:A retrospective review of the Kid's Inpatient Database (KID) years 2000 to 2009 was performed. Inclusion: patients under 20 years with ICD-9 diagnosis codes for idiopathic scoliosis (IS-without concomitant congenital anomalies) and CS, undergoing spinal fusion from the KID years 2000 to 2009. Two analyses were performed according to age below 10 years and 10 years and above. Univariate analysis described differences in demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative complications, and clinical values between groups. Binary logistic regression controlling for age, sex, race, and invasiveness predicted complications risk in CS (odds ratios; 95% confidence interval). RESULTS:In total, 25,131 patients included (IS, n=22443; CS, n=2688). For patients under age 10, CS patients underwent 1 level shorter fusions (P<0.001), had fewer comorbidities (P<0.001), and sustained similar complication incidence. In the 10 and over age analysis, CS patients similarly had shorter fusions, but greater comorbidities, and significantly more complications (odds ratio, 1.6; confidence interval, 1.4-1.8). CONCLUSIONS:CS patients have higher in-hospital complication rates. With more comorbidities, these patients have increased risk of sustaining procedure-related complications such as shock, infection, and Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome. These data help to counsel patients and their families before spinal fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III-retrospective review of a prospectively collected database.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Given the paucity of literature regarding compensatory mechanisms used by obese patients with sagittal malalignment, it is necessary to gain a better understanding of the effects of obesity on compensation after comparing the degree of malalignment to age-adjusted ideals. This study aims to compare baseline alignment of obese and nonobese patients using age-adjusted spino-pelvic alignment parameters, describing associated spinal changes. Methods/UNASSIGNED:tests compared parameters between cohorts. Results/UNASSIGNED: < .001) compared to nonobese patients with PI-LL larger than age-adjusted ideal. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Regardless of malalignment severity, obese patients recruited lower-limb compensation more than nonobese patients. Obese patients with PI-LL mismatch larger than age-adjusted ideal also develop upper-cervical and cervicothoracic compensation for malalignment. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:III. Clinical Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Clinical evaluation should extend to the cervical spine in obese patients not meeting age-adjusted sagittal alignment ideals.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:ASD (Adult spinal deformity) surgery often entails complex osteotomies and realignment procedures, particularly in the setting of rigid deformities. While previous studies have established the efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA), data evaluating the widely variable dosing regimens remains sparse. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To improve understanding of blood loss and transfusion requirements for low-dose and high-dose TXA regimens for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study of 318 ASD patients who received TXA. Outcome measures include estimated blood loss (EBL), perioperative transfusion requirement, and complications. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted on 318 ASD patients: 258 patients received a low-dose regimen of TXA (10 or 20 mg/kg loading dose with a 1 or 2 mg/kg/h maintenance dose) and 60 patients received a high-dose regimen of TXA (40 mg/kg loading dose with a 1 mg/kg/h maintenance dose, 30 mg/kg loading dose with a 10 mg/kg/h maintenance dose, or 50 mg/kg loading dose with a 5 mg/kg/h maintenance dose). RESULTS:Compared with the low-dose TXA group, the high-dose TXA group had significantly decreased EBL (1402 vs. 1793 mL, p=0.009), blood volume lost (30.3 vs. 39.4%, p=0.01), intraoperative packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusion (0.9 vs 1.6 U, p<0.0001), and intraoperative platelet transfusion (0 versus 0.1 U, p<0.0001). High-dose TXA was predictive of 515 cc less EBL (p=0.002), 11.4% less blood volume lost (p=0.004), and 1 U pRBC less transfused intraoperatively (p<0.0001) than the low-dose TXA group. The high-dose TXA group had a higher incidence of postop atrial fibrillation (AF) (5 vs 0%, p<0.0001) and myocardial infarction (MI) (1.7 vs. 0%, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS:Varying dosing regimens of TXA are utilized for ASD surgery, with a prevailing theme of dosing ambiguity. These data demonstrate that high-dose TXA is more effective than low-dose TXA in reducing blood loss and blood product transfusion requirement in ASD surgery. Importantly, rates of MI and postop AF were higher in the high-dose TXA group.

The Press Ganey survey is the most widely used instrument for measuring patient satisfaction. Understanding the factors that influence these surveys may permit better use of survey results and may direct interventions to increase patient satisfaction. Press Ganey Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys administered to ambulatory spine surgery clinic patients within a large tertiary care network from May 2016 to September 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Mean comparison testing was performed to measure associations between patient demographics and responses to "overall provider rating" and "recommend this provider's office" survey questions. Mean difference to achieve significance was set at α<0.05. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine independent factors. A total of 1400 survey responses from the offices of 11 orthopedic spine surgeons were included. Patients 18 to 34 years old had significantly lower responses to the overall provider rating question than older patients (P<.001), and increasing patient age was correlated with improved ratings. Highest education level was inversely correlated with satisfaction scores, with patients who had attained graduate level education having the lowest satisfaction scores (P=.001). Those with commercial insurance had significantly lower ratings for recommend this provider's office (P=.042) and overall provider rating (P=.022) questions than those with other insurance types. Patients administered the survey on paper had significantly lower ratings than those administered the survey online (P=.006). Provider ratings were significantly higher when the sex and ethnicity of the patient were concordant with the provider (P=.021). This study showed that independent, nonmodifiable factors such as age, education level, and survey mode were significantly associated with the satisfaction of ambulatory spine surgery clinic patients. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(3):143-148.].

MINI: 172 patients underwent a primary TLIF. Those receiving <250 total MME (44%) as an inpatient had a 3.73 (odds ratio) times smaller probability of requiring opioids at 6 month follow-up. Patients who received >500 total MME (27%) had a 4.84 times greater probability of requiring opioids at 6 month follow-up.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Full-body stereographs for adult spinal deformity (ASD) have enhanced global deformity and lower-limb compensation associations. The advent of age-adjusted goals for classic ASD parameters (sagittal vertical axis, pelvic tilt, spino-pelvic mismatch [PI-LL]) has enabled individualized evaluation of successful versus failed realignment, though these remain to be radiographically assessed postoperatively. This study analyzes pre- and postoperative sagittal alignment to quantify patient-specific correction against age-adjusted goals, and presents differences in compensation in patients whose postoperative profile deviates from targets. Methods/UNASSIGNED:tests. Results/UNASSIGNED: < .001). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Global alignment cohort improvements were observed, and when comparing actual to age-adjusted alignment, undercorrections recruited pelvic and lower-limb flexion to compensate. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:3.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Secondary analysis of prospective multicenter cohort OBJECTIVE.: To assess effect of serious adverse events (SAEs) on 2- and 4-year patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in patients surgically treated for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Operative treatment for ASLS can improve health-related quality of life (HRQL), but has high rates of SAEs. How these SAEs effect HRQL remains unclear. METHODS:The ASLS study assessed operative versus nonoperative ASLS treatment, with randomized and observational arms. Patients were 40- to 80-years-old with ASLS, defined as lumbar coronal Cobb ≥30° and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) ≥20 or Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) ≤4.0 in pain, function and/or self-image domains. SRS-22 subscore and ODI were compared between operative patients with and without a related SAE and nonoperative patients using an as-treated analysis combining randomized and observational cohorts. RESULTS:286 patients were enrolled, and 2- and 4-year follow-up rates were 90% and 81%, respectively, although at the time of data extraction not all patients were eligible for 4-year follow-up. A total of 97 SAEs were reported among 173 operatively treated patients. The most common were implant failure/pseudarthrosis (n = 25), proximal junctional kyphosis/failure (n = 10), and minor motor deficit (n = 8). At 2 years patients with an SAE improved less than those without an SAE based on SRS-22 (0.52 vs 0.79, p = 0.004) and ODI (-11.59 vs -17.34, p = 0.021). These differences were maintained at 4-years for both SRS-22 (0.51 vs 0.86, p = 0.001) and ODI (-10.73 vs -16.69, p = 0.012). Despite this effect, patients sustaining an operative SAE had greater PROM improvement than nonoperative patients (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients affected by SAEs following surgery for ASLS had significantly less improvement of PROMs at 2- and 4-year follow-up versus those without an SAE. Regardless of SAE occurrence, operatively treated patients had significantly greater improvement in PROMs than those treated nonoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:2.

BACKGROUND:The effectiveness of operative compared with nonoperative treatment at initial presentation (no prior fusion) for adult lumbar scoliosis has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated in controlled trials. The goals of this study were to evaluate the effects of operative and nonoperative treatment and to assess the benefits of these treatments to help treating physicians determine whether patients are better managed operatively or nonoperatively. METHODS:Patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (aged 40 to 80 years, with a coronal Cobb angle measurement of ≥30° and an Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score of ≥20 or Scoliosis Research Society [SRS]-22 score of ≤4.0) from 9 North American centers were enrolled in concurrent randomized or observational cohorts to evaluate operative versus nonoperative treatment. The primary outcomes were differences in the mean change from baseline in the SRS-22 subscore and ODI at 2-year follow-up. For the randomized cohort, the initial sample-size calculation estimated that 41 patients per group (82 total) would provide 80% power with alpha equal to 0.05, anticipating 10% loss to follow-up and 20% nonadherence in the nonoperative arm. However, an interim sample-size calculation estimated that 18 patients per group would be sufficient. RESULTS:Sixty-three patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort: 30 in the operative group and 33 in the nonoperative group. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were enrolled in the observational cohort: 112 in the operative group and 111 in the nonoperative group. The intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort found that, at 2 years of follow-up, outcomes did not differ between the groups. Nonadherence was high in the randomized cohort (64% nonoperative-to-operative crossover). In the as-treated analysis of the randomized cohort, operative treatment was associated with greater improvement at the 2-year follow-up in the SRS-22 subscore (adjusted mean difference, 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5 to 1.0]) and in the ODI (adjusted mean difference, -16 [95% CI, -22 to -10]) (p < 0.001 for both). Surgery was also superior to nonoperative care in the observational cohort at 2 years after treatment on the basis of SRS-22 subscore and ODI outcomes (p < 0.001). In an overall responder analysis, more operative patients achieved improvement meeting or exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the SRS-22 subscore (85.7% versus 38.7%; p < 0.001) and the ODI (77.4% versus 38.3%; p < 0.001). Thirty-four revision surgeries were performed in 24 (14%) of the operative patients. CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of as-treated and MCID analyses, if a patient with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis is satisfied with current spine-related health, nonoperative treatment is advised, with the understanding that improvement is unlikely. If a patient is not satisfied with current spine health and expects improvement, surgery is preferred. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.