Faculty Bibliography

Total hip arthroplasty dislocations that occur inside Lewinnek's anatomical safe zone represent a need to better understand the hip-spine relationship. Unfortunately, the use of obtuse and redundant terminology to describe the hip-spine relationship has made it a relatively inaccessible topic in orthopaedics. However, with a few basic definitions and principles, the hip-spine relationship can be simplified and understood to prevent unnecessary dislocations following total hip arthroplasty.In the following text, we use common language to define a normal and abnormal hip-spine relationship, present an algorithm for recognising and treating a high-risk hip-spine patient, and discuss several common, high-risk hip-spine pathologies to apply these concepts. Simply, high-risk hip-spine patients often require subtle adjustments to acetabular anteversion based on radiographic evaluations and should also be considered for a high-offset stem, dual-mobility articulation, or large femoral head for additional protection against instability and dislocation.

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study of prospective patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar fusion at a single academic institution. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To assess differences in perioperative outcomes between primary and revision MIS (minimally invasive surgical) lumbar interbody fusion patients and compare with those undergoing corresponding open procedures. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients ≥18 years old undergoing lumbar interbody fusion were grouped by surgical technique: MIS or open. Patients within each group were propensity score matched for comorbidities and levels fused. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and perioperative complication incidences were compared between primary and revision cases using means comparison tests, as appropriate. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< .05). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Clinical outcomes of revision MIS lumbar interbody fusion were similar to those of primary surgery. Additionally, MIS techniques were associated with less EBL, shorter LOS, and fewer perioperative complications than corresponding open revisions.

BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study is to determine whether simulated radiographs in the "flexed-seated" or "step-up" positions better demonstrate a patient's range of spinopelvic motion between standing and sitting positions than relaxed sitting and standing radiographs. METHODS:An institutional review board approved cohort of 43 patients with hip osteoarthritis whom underwent full body sitting-standing radiographs from August 2016 to December 2017 at a single institution was reviewed. Subjects underwent single-leg step-up standing and flexed-seated radiographs, and relaxed standing and sitting radiographs. Sacral slope, spinopelvic tilt (SPT), and lumbar lordosis were measured in all radiographs. Alignment parameters were compared between both sets of imaging, and the change in SPT between the imaging modalities was plotted and stratified by pre-existing lumbar pathology. RESULTS:There were significant differences between the relaxed standing and step-up radiographs and the relaxed and flexed-seated radiographs for sacral slope, SPT, and lumbar lordosis (P < .002 for all), with the exception of SPT in the relaxed and step-up standing postures (P = .110). When transitioning from the standing to sitting position, the mean changes in SPT differed significantly between both sets of radiographs. Most importantly, when plotting changes in SPT between flexed and relaxed sitting postures, patients with fusions and flatback deformity trended toward greater anterior pelvic tilting, a position of greater risk of posterior dislocation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Flexed sitting and single-leg standing imaging may emphasize the compensatory mechanisms of patients with concomitant hip and spine pathology more than relaxed imaging using our measurements. Our method may provide insight into high dislocation risk patients compared to the previously published hip measurement method. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of a prospective multicenter database. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to study the effects of thoracic kyphosis (TK) restoration in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) Type 1 and 2 curves on postoperative thoracic volume (TV) and pulmonary function. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Surgical correction of AIS is advocated to preserve or improve pulmonary function, prevent progressive deformity and pain, and improve self-appearance. Restoration of sagittal and 3D alignment, particularly TK, has become increasingly emphasized in efforts to improve pulmonary function, TVs, sagittal balance, and prevent adjacent-segment degeneration and deformity. METHODS:AIS patients 10 to 21years undergoing surgical correction of Lenke Type 1 and 2 curves with baseline, 1-erect-postoperative, and 5-year (5Y) postoperative visits including stereoradiographic assessment and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were included. 3D-radiographic analysis was performed to assess spinal-alignment, chest-wall, and rib-cage dimensions at each time point. Outcome variables were analyzed between time points with one-way analysis of variance and between variables with linear regression analysis. RESULTS:Thirty-nine patients (37 females, 14.4 ± 2.2 years) were included. 3D-spinal-alignment analyses demonstrated significant reduction in preoperative to first-erect thoracic and lumbar Cobb-angles, an increase in TK:T2-12 (19.67°-39.69°) and TK:T5-12 (9.47°-28.05°), and reduction in apical vertebral rotation (AVR) (P < 0.001 for all). Spinal-alignment remained stable from 1-erect to 5Y. 3D rib-cage analysis demonstrated small reductions in baseline to first-erect depth (145-139 mm), width (235-232 mm), and increase in height (219-230 mm, P < 0.01), but no significant change in volume (5161-5222 cm,P = 0.184). From 1-erect to 5Y, significant increases in depth, width, height, and volume (all P < 0.001) occurred. PFTs showed preoperative to 5Y improvement in first second of Forced Expiratory Volume (FEV1) (2.74-2.98 L, P = 0.005) and forced vital capacity (FVC) (3.23-3.47 L, P = 0.008); however, total lung capacity (TLC) did not change (P = 0.517). Percent-predicted TLC decreased (Pre: 101.3% to 5Y: 89.3%, P < 0.001); however, percent-predicted forced expiratory volume and FVC did not (P = 0.112 and P = 0.068). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although TK increases, coronal-Cobb and AVR decrease postoperatively; these do not directly influence TV, which increases from 1-erect to 5Y due to growth, corresponding with increases in FEV1 and FVC at 5Y; however, surgical restoration of kyphosis does not directly improve pulmonary function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

Study Design/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective review of single institution. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To assess the relationship between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in thoracolumbar patients. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Included: Patients ≥18 years with a thoracolumbar spine condition (spinal stenosis, disc herniation, low back pain, disc degeneration, spondylolysis). Bivariate correlations assessed the linear relationships between ODI and PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Intensity, and Pain Interference). Correlation cutoffs assessed patients with high and low correlation between ODI and PROMIS. Linear regression predicted the relationship of ODI to PROMIS. Results/UNASSIGNED:= 0.499) of the variance in Pain Intensity score. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:There is a large amount of variability with PROMIS that cannot be accounted for with ODI. ODI questions regarding walking, social life, and lifting ability correlate strongly with PROMIS while sitting, standing, and sleeping do not. These results reinforce the utility of PROMIS as a valid assessment for low back disability, while indicating the need for further evaluation of the factors responsible for variation between PROMIS and ODI.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Predictors of long-term opioid usage in TLIF patients have not been previously explored in the literature. We examined the effect of pre-operative narcotic use in addition to other predictors of the pattern and duration of post-operative narcotic usage. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single academic institution of patients undergoing a one- or two-level primary TLIF between 2014 and 2017. Total oral morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) for inpatient use were calculated and used as the common unit of comparison. RESULTS: = 0.547, specificity 95%, sensitivity 58%) demonstrated that a psychiatric or chronic pain diagnosis (OR 3.95, p = 0.013, 95% CI 1.34-11.6), pre-operative opioid use (OR 8.65, p < 0.001, 95% CI 2.59-29.0), ASA class (OR 2.95, p = 0.025, 95% CI 1.14-7.63), and inpatient total MME (1.002, p < 0.001, 95% CI 1.001-1.003) were positive predictors of prolonged opioid use at 6-month follow-up, while inpatient muscle relaxant use (OR 0.327, p = 0.049, 95% CI 0.108-0.994) decreased the probability of prolonged opioid use. Patients in the pre-operative opioid use group had a significantly higher rate of opioid usage at 6 weeks (79% vs. 46%, p < 0.001), 3 months (51% vs. 14%, p < 0.001), and 6 months (40% vs. 5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Pre-operative opioid usage is associated with higher total inpatient opioid use and a significantly higher risk of long-term opiate usage at 6 months. Approximately 40% of pre-operative narcotic users will continue to consume narcotics at 6-month follow-up, compared with 5% of narcotic-naïve patients. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) is a quality of life metric that has gained increased popularity due to computer adaptive testing. Previous studies have shown that PROMIS correlates with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in patients with back pain and takes significantly less time to complete. However, the ability of PROMIS to capture disability from spinal malalignment relative to established metrics is unknown. The aim of the present study is to validate the correlation between ODI and PROMIS in patients with back pain, analyze correlations of PROMIS and legacy metrics to sagittal alignment, and identify major drivers of PROMIS scores and ODI in patients with back pain. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted of a prospectively collected outcome measures database (PROMIS, ODI, VAS Back, VAS Leg, VAS Neck, and VAS Arm) of spine patients > 18 years. Inclusion criteria for the present study was a chief complaint of back pain and full length weight bearing X-rays within 30 days of health related quality of life (HRQL) completion. Demographic information, radiographic alignment, psychiatric diagnoses, and comorbidities were recorded. PROMIS metrics were correlated to legacy metrics (ODI and VAS). Next, outcome metrics were correlated with sagittal alignment variables T1 Pelvic Angle (TPA), SVA, PT, and PI-LL. Patients were grouped based on the presence of spinal deformity (defined radiographically as any one of SVA > 4 cm, PI-LL > 10°, PT > 20°) and mean HRQL scores were investigated for the adult spinal deformity (ASD) and non-ASD groups. Finally, drivers of PROMIS PF scores and ODI scores were determined using multiple stepwise regression. RESULTS: = 0.376, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In a cohort of 150 patients with back pain, PROMIS correlated strongly with legacy outcome metrics, including VAS and ODI. PROMIS PF correlated more strongly with sagittal malalignment than ODI. Additionally, patients with spinal deformity had significantly worse PROMIS PF scores but similar ODI scores as patients without ASD. Finally, sagittal alignment was found to be a significant driver of PROMIS PF scores but not ODI scores. PROMIS PF should be utilized as a disability assessment tool in patients with spinal deformity due to ease of use, strong correlations with legacy metrics, and ability to capture disability resulting from sagittal alignment.

BACKGROUND:There are no studies to date analyzing the effect of spinal malalignment on outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Knee flexion is a well-described lower extremity compensatory mechanism for maintaining sagittal balance with increasing spinal deformity. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a subset of patients with poor range of motion (ROM) after TKA have unrecognized spinal deformity, predisposing them to knee flexion contractures and stiffness. METHODS:We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive series of patients who underwent manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for poor ROM after TKA. Using standing full-length biplanar images, knee alignment and spinopelvic parameters were measured. Patients were stratified by pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis as a measure of spinal sagittal alignment with a mismatch of ≥10° defined as abnormal, and we calculated the incidence of sagittal spinal deformity. RESULTS:Average ROM before MUA was extension 3° and flexion 83°. About 62% of patients had a pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch of ≥10°. In the spinal deformity group, post-MUA ROM was improved for flexion only, whereas both flexion and extension were improved in the nondeformity group. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Compensatory knee flexion because of sagittal spinal deformity may predispose to poor ROM after TKA. Patients with clinical suspicion should be worked up preoperatively and counseled accordingly.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Obesity has risen to epidemic proportions within the United States. As the rates of obesity have increased, so has its prevalence among patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The effect of obesity on the cost efficiency of corrective procedures for ASD has not been effectively evaluated. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To investigate differences in cost efficiency of ASD surgery for patients stratified by body mass index (BMI). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective review of a single center ASD database. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:505 ASD patients OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications, revisions, costs, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), quality adjusted life years (QALYS), cost per QALY. METHODS:ASD patients (scoliosis≥20°, SVA≥5cm, PT≥25°, or TK ≥60°) ≥18, undergoing ≥4 level fusions were included. Patients were stratified into NIH-defined obesity groups based on their preoperative BMI: underweight 18.5< (U), normal 18.5-24.9 (N), overweight 25.0-29.9 (O), obese I 30.0-34.9 (OI), obese II 35.0-39.9 (OII), and obesity class III 40.0 + (OIII). Total surgery costs for each ASD obesity group were calculated. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, which reflects both private insurance and Medicare reimbursement claims. Overall complications (CC) and major complications (MCC) were assessed according to CMS. DEFINITIONS/BACKGROUND:QALYs and cost per QALY for obesity groups were calculated using an annual 3% discount up to life expectancy (78.7 years). RESULTS:In all, 505 patients met inclusion criteria. Baseline demographics and surgical details were: age 60.8 ± 14.8, 67.6% female, BMI 28.8 ± 7.30, 81.0% posterior approach, 18% combined approach, 10.1 ± 4.2 levels fused, op time 441.2 ± 146.1 minutes, EBL 1903.8 ± 1594.7 cc, LOS 8.7 ± 10.7 days. There were 17 U, 154 N patients, 151 O patients, 100 OI, 51 OII, and 32 OIII patients. Revision rates by obesity group were: 0% U, 3% N patients, 3% O patients, 5% OI, 4% OII, and 6% for OIII patients. The total surgery costs by obesity group were: $48,757.86 U, $49,688.52 N, $47,219.93 O, $50,467.66 OI, $51,189.47 OII, and $53,855.79 OIII. In an analysis of patients with baseline and 1Y EQ5D follow up, the cost per QALY by obesity group was: $153,737.78 U, $229,222.37 N, $290,361.68 O, $493,588.47 OI, $327,876.21 OII, and $171,680.00 OIII. If that benefit was sustained to life expectancy, the cost per QALY was $8,588.70 U, $12,805.72 N, $16,221.32 O, $27,574.77 OI, $18,317.11 OII, and $9,591.06 for OIII. CONCLUSIONS:Among adult spinal deformity patients, those with BMIs in the obesity I, obesity II, or obesity class III range had more expensive total surgery costs. When assessing 1 year cost per quality adjusted life year, obese patients had costs 32% higher than non-obese patients ($224,440.61 vs. $331,048.23). Further research is warranted on the utility of optimizing modifiable preoperative health factors for patients undergoing corrective adult spinal deformity surgery.