Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The spectrum of patients requiring adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is highly variable in baseline (BL) risk such as age, frailty, and deformity severity. Although improvements have been realized in ASD surgery over the past decade, it is unknown whether these carry over to high-risk patients. We aim to determine temporal differences in outcomes at 2 years after ASD surgery in patients stratified by BL risk. METHODS:Patients ≥18 years with complete pre- (BL) and 2-year (2Y) postoperative data from 2009 to 2018 were categorized as having undergone surgery from 2009 to 2013 [early] or from 2014 to 2018 [late]. High-risk [HR] patients met ≥2 of the criteria: (1) ++ BL pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis or SVA by Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab criteria, (2) elderly [≥70 years], (3) severe BL frailty, (4) high Charlson comorbidity index, (5) undergoing 3-column osteotomy, and (6) fusion of >12 levels, or >7 levels for elderly patients. Demographics, clinical outcomes, radiographic alignment targets, and complication rates were assessed by time period for high-risk patients. RESULTS:Of the 725 patients included, 52% (n = 377) were identified as HR. 47% (n = 338) had surgery pre-2014 [early], and 53% (n = 387) underwent surgery in 2014 or later [late]. There was a higher proportion of HR patients in Late group (56% vs 48%). Analysis by early/late status showed no significant differences in achieving improved radiographic alignment by SRS-Schwab, age-adjusted alignment goals, or global alignment and proportion proportionality by 2Y (all P > .05). Late/HR patients had significantly less poor clinical outcomes per SRS and Oswestry Disability Index (both P < .01). Late/HR patients had fewer complications (63% vs 74%, P = .025), reoperations (17% vs 30%, P = .002), and surgical infections (0.9% vs 4.3%, P = .031). Late/HR patients had lower rates of early proximal junctional kyphosis (10% vs 17%, P = .041) and proximal junctional failure (11% vs 22%, P = .003). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite operating on more high-risk patients between 2014 and 2018, surgeons effectively reduced rates of complications, mechanical failures, and reoperations, while simultaneously improving health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:For patients with surgical adult spinal deformity (ASD), our understanding of alignment has evolved, especially in the last 20 years. Determination of optimal restoration of alignment and spinal shape has been increasingly studied, yet the assessment of how these alignment schematics have incrementally added benefit to outcomes remains to be evaluated. METHODS:Patients with ASD with baseline and 2-year were included, classified by 4 alignment measures: Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab, Age-Adjusted, Roussouly, and Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP). The incremental benefits of alignment schemas were assessed in chronological order as our understanding of optimal alignment progressed. Alignment was considered improved from baseline based on SRS-Schwab 0 or decrease in severity, Age-Adjusted ideal match, Roussouly current (based on sacral slope) matching theoretical (pelvic incidence-based), and decrease in proportion. Patients separated into 4 first improving in SRS-Schwab at 2-year, second Schwab improvement and matching Age-Adjusted, third two prior with Roussouly, and fourth improvement in all four. Comparison was accomplished with means comparison tests and χ2 analyses. RESULTS:Sevenhundredthirty-two. patients met inclusion. SRS-Schwab BL: pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (++:32.9%), sagittal vertical axis (++: 23%), pelvic tilt (++:24.6%). 640 (87.4%) met criteria for first, 517 (70.6%) second, 176 (24%) third, and 55 (7.5%) fourth. The addition of Roussouly (third) resulted in lower rates of mechanical complications and proximal junctional kyphosis (48.3%) and higher rates of meeting minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for physical component summary and SRS-Mental (P < .05) compared with the second. Fourth compared with the third had higher rates of MCID for ODI (44.2% vs third: 28.3%, P = .011) and SRS-Appearance (70.6% vs 44.8%, P < .001). Mechanical complications and proximal junctional kyphosis were lower with the addition of Roussouly (P = .024), while the addition of GAP had higher rates of meeting MCID for SRS-22 Appearance (P = .002) and Oswestry Disability Index (P = .085). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our evaluation of the incremental benefit that alignment schemas have provided in ASD corrective surgery suggests that the addition of Roussouly provided the greatest reduction in mechanical complications, while the incorporation of GAP provided the most significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes.

AIMS/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the level of upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) in frail patients undergoing surgery for adult spine deformity (ASD). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients with adult spinal deformity who had undergone T9-to-pelvis fusion were stratified using the ASD-Modified Frailty Index into not frail, frail, and severely frail categories. ASD was defined as at least one of: scoliosis ≥ 20°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) ≥ 5 cm, or pelvic tilt ≥ 25°. Means comparisons tests were used to assess differences between both groups. Logistic regression analyses were used to analyze associations between frailty categories, UIV, and outcomes. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:(SD 5.8), mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 1.67 (SD 1.66)). Overall, 74% of patients were female (n = 353), and 49.6% of patients were not frail (237), 35.4% frail (n = 169), and 15% severely frail (n = 71). At baseline, differences in age, BMI, CCI, and deformity were significant (all p = 0.001). Overall, 15.5% of patients (n = 74) had experienced mechanical complications by two years (8.1% not frail (n = 36), 15.1% frail (n = 26), and 16.3% severely frail (n = 12); p = 0.013). Reoperations also differed between groups (20.2% (n = 48) vs 23.3% (n = 39) vs 32.6% (n = 23); p = 0.011). Controlling for osteoporosis, baseline deformity, and degree of correction (by sagittal age-adjusted score (SAAS) matching), frail and severely frail patients were more likely to experience mechanical complications if they had heart failure (odds ratio (OR) 6.6 (95% CI 1.6 to 26.7); p = 0.008), depression (OR 5.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 25.7); p = 0.048), or cancer (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.4); p = 0.004). Frail and severely frail patients experienced higher rates of mechanical complication than 'not frail' patients at two years (19% (n = 45) vs 11.9% (n = 29); p = 0.003). When controlling for baseline deformity and degree of correction in severely frail and frail patients, severely frail patients were less likely to experience clinically relevant proximal junctional kyphosis or failure or mechanical complications by two years, if they had a more proximal UIV. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Frail patients are at risk of a poor outcome after surgery for adult spinal deformity due to their comorbidities. Although a definitively prescriptive upper instrumented vertebra remains elusive, these patients appear to be at greater risk for a poor outcome if the upper instrumented vertebra is sited more distally.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients with sagittal plane deformity (N) or structural lumbar/thoraco-lumbar (TL) curves can be treated with fusions stopping at the TL junction or extending to the upper thoracic (UT) spine. This study evaluates the impact on cost/cumulative quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in patients treated with TL vs UT fusion. METHODS:ASD patients with > 4-level fusion and 2-year follow-up were included. Index and total episode-of-care costs were estimated using average itemized direct costs obtained from hospital records. Cumulative QALY gained were calculated from preoperative to 2-year postoperative change in Short Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) scores. The TL and UT groups comprised patients with upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) at T9-T12 and T2-T5, respectively. RESULTS:Of 566 patients with type N or L curves, mean age was 63.2 ± 12.1 years, 72% were female and 93% Caucasians. Patients in the TL group had better sagittal vertical axis (7.3 ± 6.9 vs. 9.2 ± 8.1 cm, p = 0.01), lower surgical invasiveness (- 30; p < 0.001), and shorter OR time (- 35 min; p = 0.01). Index and total costs were 20% lower in the TL than in the UT group (p < 0.001). Cost/QALY was 65% lower (492,174.6 vs. 963,391.4), and 2-year QALY gain was 40% higher, in the TL than UT group (0.15 vs. 0.10; p = 0.02). Multivariate model showed TL fusions had lower total cost (p = 0.001) and higher QALY gain (p = 0.03) than UT fusions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In Schwab type N or L curves, TL fusions showed lower 2-year cost and improved QALY gain without increased reoperation rates or length of stay than UT fusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate factors associated with the long-term durability of cost-effectiveness (CE) in ASD patients. BACKGROUND:A substantial increase in costs associated with the surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) has given precedence to scrutinize the value and utility it provides. METHODS:We included 327 operative ASD patients with five-year (5 yr) follow-up. Published methods were used to determine costs based on CMS.gov definitions and were based on the average DRG reimbursement rates. The utility was calculated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) utilizing the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) converted to Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D), with a 3% discount applied for its decline in life expectancy. The CE threshold of $150,000 was used for primary analysis. RESULTS:Major and minor complication rates were 11% and 47%, respectively, with 26% undergoing reoperation by five years. The mean cost associated with surgery was $91,095±$47,003, with a utility gain of 0.091±0.086 at one years, QALY gained at 2 years of 0.171±0.183, and at five years of 0.42±0.43. The cost per QALY at two years was $414,885, which decreased to $142,058 at five years.With the threshold of $150,000 for CE, 19% met CE at two years and 56% at five years. In those in which revision was avoided, 87% met cumulative CE till life expectancy. Controlling analysis depicted higher baseline CCI and pelvic tilt (PT) to be the strongest predictors for not maintaining durable CE to five years [CCI OR: 1.821 (1.159-2.862), P =0.009] [PT OR: 1.079 (1.007-1.155), P =0.030]. CONCLUSIONS:Most patients achieved cost-effectiveness after four years postoperatively, with 56% meeting at five years postoperatively. When revision was avoided, 87% of patients met cumulative cost-effectiveness till life expectancy. Mechanical complications were predictive of failure to achieve cost-effectiveness at two years, while comorbidity burden and medical complications were at five years.

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:To determine the incidence and success of three-column osteotomies (3COs) performed in primary and revision adult spine deformity (ASD) corrective surgeries. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE/UNASSIGNED:3COs are often required to correct severe, rigid ASD presentations. However, controversy remains on the utility of 3COs, particularly in primary surgery. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients ASD having 2-year data were included and divided into 3CO and non-3CO (remaining ASD cohort) groups. For the subanalysis, patients were stratified based on whether they were undergoing primary (P3CO) or revision (R3CO) surgery. Multivariate analysis controlling for age, Charlson comorbidity index, body mass index, baseline pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis, and fused levels evaluated the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between the 3CO and non-3CO groups. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of the 436 patients included, 20% had 3COs. 3COs were performed in 16% of P3COs and 51% of R3COs. Both 3CO groups had greater severity in deformity and disability at baseline; however, only R3COs improved more than non-3COs. Despite greater segmental correction, 3COs had much lower rates of aligning in the lumbar distribution index (LDI), higher mechanical complications, and more reoperations when performed below L3. When comparing P3COs and R3COs, baseline lumbopelvic and global alignments, as well as disability, were different. The R3CO group had greater clinical improvements and global correction (both p<0.04), although the P3CO group achieved alignment in LDI more often (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-6.2; p=0.006). The P3CO group had more neurological complications (30% vs. 13%, p=0.042), whereas the R3CO tended to have higher mechanical complication rates (25% vs. 15%, p=0.2). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:3COs showed greater improvements in realignment while failing to demonstrate the same clinical improvement as primaries without a 3CO. Overall, when suitably indicated, a 3CO offers superior utility for achieving optimal realignment across primary and revision surgeries for ASD correction.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Previous work comparing ASD to a normative population demonstrated that a large proportion of lumbar lordosis is lost proximally (L1-L4). The current study expands on these findings by collectively investigating regional angles and spinal contours. METHODS:119 asymptomatic volunteers with full-body free-standing radiographs were used to identify age-and-PI models of each Vertebra Pelvic Angle (VPA) from L5 to T10. These formulas were then applied to a cohort of primary surgical ASD patients without coronal malalignment. Loss of lumbar lordosis (LL) was defined as the offset between age-and-PI normative value and pre-operative alignment. Spine shapes defined by VPAs were compared and analyzed using paired t-tests. RESULTS:362 ASD patients were identified (age = 64.4 ± 13, 57.1% females). Compared to their age-and-PI normative values, patients demonstrated a significant loss in LL of 17 ± 19° in the following distribution: 14.1% had "No loss" (mean = 0.1 ± 2.3), 22.9% with 10°-loss (mean = 9.9 ± 2.9), 22.1% with 20°-loss (mean = 20.0 ± 2.8), and 29.3% with 30°-loss (mean = 33.8 ± 6.0). "No loss" patients' spine was slightly posterior to the normative shape from L4 to T10 (VPA difference of 2°), while superimposed on the normative one from S1 to L2 and became anterior at L1 in the "10°-loss" group. As LL loss increased, ASD and normative shapes offset extended caudally to L3 for the "20°-loss" group and L4 for the "30°-loss" group. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:As LL loss increases, the difference between ASD and normative shapes first occurs proximally and then progresses incrementally caudally. Understanding spinal contour and LL loss location may be key to achieving sustainable correction by identifying optimal and personalized postoperative shapes.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective single-center study. OBJECTIVE:To assess the influence of frailty on optimal outcome following ASD corrective surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Frailty is a determining factor in outcomes after ASD surgery and may exert a ceiling effect on the best possible outcome. METHODS:ASD patients with frailty measures, baseline, and 2-year ODI included. Frailty was classified as Not Frail (NF), Frail (F) and Severely Frail (SF) based on the modified Frailty Index, then stratified into quartiles based on two-year ODI improvement (most improved designated "Highest"). Logistic regression analyzed relationships between frailty and ODI score and improvement, maintenance, or deterioration. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to analyze differences in time to complication or reoperation. RESULTS:A total of 393 ASD patients were isolated (55.2% NF, 31.0% F, and 13.7% SF), then classified as 12.5% NF-Highest, 17.8% F-Highest, and 3.1% SF-Highest. The SF group had the highest rate of deterioration (16.7%, P =0.025) in the second postoperative year, but the groups were similar in improvement (NF: 10.1%, F: 11.5%, SF: 9.3%, P =0.886). Improvement of SF patients was greatest at six months (ΔODI of -22.6±18.0, P <0.001), but NF and F patients reached maximal ODI at 2 years (ΔODI of -15.7±17.9 and -20.5±18.4, respectively). SF patients initially showed the greatest improvement in ODI (NF: -4.8±19.0, F: -12.4±19.3, SF: -22.6±18.0 at six months, P <0.001). A Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed a trend of less time to major complication or reoperation by 2 years with increasing frailty (NF: 7.5±0.381 yr, F: 6.7±0.511 yr, SF: 5.8±0.757 yr; P =0.113). CONCLUSIONS:Increasing frailty had a negative effect on maximal improvement, where severely frail patients exhibited a parabolic effect with greater initial improvement due to higher baseline disability, but reached a ceiling effect with less overall maximal improvement. Severe frailty may exert a ceiling effect on improvement and impair maintenance of improvement following surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to assess how various realignment strategies affect mechanical failure and clinical outcomes in pelvic incidence (PI)-stratified cohorts following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. METHODS:Median and interquartile range statistics were calculated for demographics and surgical details. Further statistical analysis was used to define subsets within PI generating significantly different rates of mechanical failure. These subsets of PI were further analyzed as subcohorts for the outcomes and effects of realignment within each subcohort. Multivariate logistic regression analysis controlling for baseline frailty and lumbar lordosis (LL; L1-S1) analyzed the association of age-adjusted realignment and Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) strategies with the incidence of mechanical failure and clinical improvement within PI-stratified groups. RESULTS:A parabolic relationship between PI and mechanical failure was noted, whereas patients with either < 51° (n = 174, 39.1% of cohort) or > 63° (n = 114, 25.6% of cohort) of PI generated higher rates of mechanical failure (18.0% and 20.0%, respectively) and lower rates of good outcome (80.3% and 77.6%, respectively) than those with moderate PI (51°-63°). Patients with lower PI more often met good outcome criteria when undercorrected in age-adjusted PI-LL mismatch and sagittal age-adjusted score, and those not meeting good outcome criteria were more likely to deteriorate in GAP relative LL from first to final follow-up (OR 13.4, 95% CI 1.3-139.2). In those with moderate PI, patients were more likely to meet good outcome when aligned on the GAP lordosis distribution index (LDI; OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.3). Patients with higher PI meeting good outcome were more likely to be overcorrected in sagittal vertical axis (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.2) at first follow-up and less likely to be undercorrected in T1 pelvic angle (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9) by final follow-up. When assessing GAP alignment, patients were more likely to meet good outcome when aligned on GAP LDI (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.4-8.9). CONCLUSIONS:There was a parabolic relationship between PI and both mechanical failure and clinical improvement following deformity correction in this study. Understanding the associations between this fixed parameter and poor outcomes can aid the surgeon in strategical planning when seeking to realign ASD.

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.