Intraoperative fluid management in adult spinal deformity surgery: variation analysis and association with outcomes.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the variability in intraoperative fluid management during adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, and analyze the association with complications, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and length of hospital stay (LOS). METHODS: Multicenter comparative cohort study. Patients ≥ 18 years old and with ASD were included. Intraoperative intravenous (IV) fluid data were collected including: crystalloids, colloids, crystalloid/colloid ratio (C/C), total IV fluid (tIVF, ml), normalized total IV fluid (nIVF, ml/kg/h), input/output ratio (IOR), input-output difference (IOD), and normalized input-output difference (nIOD, ml/kg/h). Data from different centers were compared for variability analysis, and fluid parameters were analyzed for possible associations with the outcomes. RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-eight patients with a median age of 65.2 were included. Among different surgical centers, tIVF, nIVF, and C/C showed significant variation (p < 0.001 for each) with differences of 4.8-fold, 3.7-fold, and 4.9-fold, respectively. Two hundred ninety-two (36.6%) patients experienced at least one in-hospital complication, and ninety-two (11.5%) were IV fluid related. Univariate analysis showed significant relations for: LOS and tIVF (ρ = 0.221, p < 0.001), IOD (ρ = 0.115, p = 0.001) and IOR (ρ = -0.138, p < 0.001); IV fluid-related complications and tIVF (p = 0.049); ICU stay and tIVF, nIVF, IOD and nIOD (p < 0.001 each); extended ICU stay and tIVF (p < 0.001), nIVF (p = 0.010) and IOD (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis controlling for confounders showed significant relations for: LOS and tIVF (p < 0.001) and nIVF (p = 0.003); ICU stay and IOR (p = 0.002), extended ICU stay and tIVF (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Significant variability and lack of standardization in intraoperative IV fluid management exists between different surgical centers. Excessive fluid administration was found to be correlated with negative outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The T4-L1-Hip Axis: Sagittal Spinal Realignment Targets in Long-Construct Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Early Impact.

BACKGROUND: Our understanding of the relationship between sagittal alignment and mechanical complications is evolving. In normal spines, the L1-pelvic angle (L1PA) accounts for the magnitude and distribution of lordosis and is strongly associated with pelvic incidence (PI), and the T4-pelvic angle (T4PA) is within 4° of the L1PA. We aimed to examine the clinical implications of realignment to a normal L1PA and T4-L1PA mismatch. METHODS: A prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity registry was queried for patients who underwent fixation from the T1-T5 region to the sacrum and had 2-year radiographic follow-up. Normal sagittal alignment was defined as previously described for normal spines: L1PA = PI × 0.5 - 21°, and T4-L1PA mismatch = 0°. Mechanical failure was defined as severe proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), displaced rod fracture, or reoperation for junctional failure, pseudarthrosis, or rod fracture within 2 years. Multivariable nonlinear logistic regression was used to define target ranges for L1PA and T4-L1PA mismatch that minimized the risk of mechanical failure. The relationship between changes in T4PA and changes in global sagittal alignment according to the C2-pelvic angle (C2PA) was determined using linear regression. Lastly, multivariable regression was used to assess associations between initial postoperative C2PA and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year, adjusting for preoperative scores and age. RESULTS: The median age of the 247 included patients was 64 years (interquartile range, 57 to 69 years), and 202 (82%) were female. Deviation from a normal L1PA or T4-L1PA mismatch in either direction was associated with a significantly higher risk of mechanical failure, independent of age. Risk was minimized with an L1PA of PI × 0.5 - (19° ± 2°) and T4-L1PA mismatch between -3° and +1°. Changes in T4PA and in C2PA at the time of final follow-up were strongly associated (r2 = 0.96). Higher postoperative C2PA was independently associated with more disability, more pain, and worse self-image at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: We defined sagittal alignment targets using L1PA (relative to PI) and the T4-L1PA mismatch, which are both directly modifiable during surgery. In patients undergoing long fusion to the sacrum, realignment based on these targets may lead to fewer mechanical failures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Thoracolumbar fusions for adult lumbar deformity show superior QALY gain and lower costs compared with upper thoracic fusions.

PURPOSE: 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: 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: III.

Impact of Prior Cervical Fusion on Patients Undergoing Thoracolumbar Deformity Correction.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of prior cervical constructs on upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) selection and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing thoracolumbar deformity correction. BACKGROUND: Surgical planning for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients involves consideration of spinal alignment and existing fusion constructs. METHODS: ASD patients with (ANTERIOR or POSTERIOR) and without (NONE) prior cervical fusion who underwent thoracolumbar fusion were included. Demographics, radiographic alignment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on POSTERIOR patients to identify parameters predictive of UIV choice and to evaluate postoperative outcomes impacted by UIV selection. RESULTS: Among 542 patients, with 446 NONE, 72 ANTERIOR, and 24 POSTERIOR patients, mean age was 64.4 years and 432 (80%) were female. Cervical fusion patients had worse preoperative cervical and lumbosacral deformity, and PROMs (P<0.05). In the POSTERIOR cohort, preoperative LIV was frequently below the cervicothoracic junction (54%) and uncommonly (13%) connected to the thoracolumbar UIV. Multivariate analyses revealed that higher preoperative cervical SVA (coeff=-0.22, 95%CI=-0.43--0.01, P=0.038) and C2SPi (coeff=-0.72, 95%CI=-1.36--0.07, P=0.031), and lower preoperative thoracic kyphosis (coeff=0.14, 95%CI=0.01-0.28, P=0.040) and thoracolumbar lordosis (coeff=0.22, 95%CI=0.10-0.33, P=0.001) were predictive of cranial UIV. Two-year postoperatively, cervical patients continued to have worse cervical deformity and PROMs (P<0.05) but had comparable postoperative complications. Choice of thoracolumbar UIV below or above T6, as well as the number of unfused levels between constructs, did not affect patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent thoracolumbar deformity correction, prior cervical fusion was associated with more severe spinopelvic deformity and PROMs preoperatively. The choice of thoracolumbar UIV was strongly predicted by their baseline cervical and thoracolumbar alignment. Despite their poor preoperative condition, these patients still experienced significant improvements in their thoracolumbar alignment and PROMs after surgery, irrespective of UIV selection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Osteoporosis Treatment and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the prevalence and treatment of osteoporosis in patients undergoing long spinal fusion for adult spinal deformity (ASD) and compare the impact of osteoporosis treatment on surgical and radiographic outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of adult patients aged ≥40 years who underwent thoracolumbar ASD surgery at a single academic center between 2015 and 2021. We recorded demographic information, procedural details, and pharmacologic treatments. Primary outcomes included preoperative and postoperative sagittal vertical axis, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch, and postoperative complications such as surgical site infection, pseudarthrosis, proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), and proximal junctional failure. Patients with osteoporosis were compared to those without. RESULTS: Among 168 patients, the prevalence of osteoporosis was 28.6%. Osteoporotic patients were older and predominantly female. At the time of surgery, 70.8% of osteoporotic patients were receiving pharmacologic treatment. Preoperative pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch and sagittal vertical axis did not differ significantly between osteoporotic and nonosteoporotic cohorts. Both cohorts showed similar postoperative improvements. The osteoporotic cohort had a higher rate of PJK (35.4% vs. 17.5%, p=0.01), but no significant difference in proximal junctional failure rates. No significant differences were found between monotherapy and combination therapy outcomes for osteoporotic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporotic patients undergoing ASD surgery exhibited similar surgical outcomes and alignment improvements compared to nonosteoporotic patients, despite a higher rate of PJK. Pharmacological treatment appears beneficial in managing osteoporosis-related surgical risks. These findings highlight the importance of identifying and treating osteoporosis in ASD patients to minimize complications.

Expectations of clinical improvement following corrective surgery for adult cervical deformity based on functional disability at presentation.

PURPOSE: To assess impact of baseline disability on HRQL outcomes. METHODS: CD patients with baseline (BL) and 2 year (2Y) data included, and ranked into quartiles by baseline NDI, from lowest/best score (Q1) to highest/worst score (Q4). Means comparison tests analyzed differences between quartiles. ANCOVA and logistic regressions assessed differences in outcomes while accounting for covariates (BL deformity, comorbidities, HRQLs, surgical details and complications). RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen patients met inclusion (Age:60.97 ± 10.45 years, BMI: 28.73 ± 7.59 kg/m2, CCI: 0.94 ± 1.31). The cohort mean cSVA was 38.54 ± 19.43 mm and TS-CL: 37.34 ± 19.73. Mean BL NDI by quartile was: Q1: 25.04 ± 8.19, Q2: 41.61 ± 2.77, Q3: 53.31 ± 4.32, and Q4: 69.52 ± 8.35. Q2 demonstrated greatest improvement in NRS Neck at 2Y (-3.93), compared to Q3 (-1.61, p = .032) and Q4 (-1.41, p = .015). Q2 demonstrated greater improvement in NRS Back (-1.71), compared to Q4 (+ 0.84, p = .010). Q2 met MCID in NRS Neck at the highest rates (69.9%), especially compared to Q4 (30.3%), p = .039. Q2 had the greatest improvement in EQ-5D (+ 0.082), compared to Q1 (+ 0.073), Q3 (+ 0.022), and Q4 (+ 0.014), p = .034. Q2 also had the greatest mJOA improvement (+ 1.517), p = .042. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in Q2, with mean BL NDI of 42, consistently demonstrated the greatest improvement in HRQLs whereas those in Q4, (NDI 70), saw the least. BL NDI between 39 and 44 may represent a disability "Sweet Spot," within which operative intervention maximizes patient-reported outcomes. Furthermore, delaying intervention until patients are severely disabled, beyond an NDI of 61, may limit the benefits of surgery.

A comparative cohort study of surgical approaches for adult spinal deformity at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: This study was a retrospective multi-center comparative cohort study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective institutional database of operative adult spinal deformity patients was utilized. All fusions > 5 vertebral levels and including the sacrum/pelvis were eligible for inclusion. Revisions, 3 column osteotomies, and patients with < 2-year clinical follow-up were excluded. Patients were separated into 3 groups based on surgical approach: 1) posterior spinal fusion without interbody (PSF), 2) PSF with interbody (PSF-IB), and 3) anteroposterior (AP) fusion (anterior lumbar interbody fusion or lateral lumbar interbody fusion with posterior screw fixation). Intraoperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes, as well as complications, were compared between groups with ANOVA and χ2 tests. RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty-eight patients were included for study (PSF, n = 37; PSF-IB, n = 44; AP, n = 57). Intraoperatively, estimated blood loss was similar between groups (p = 0.171). However, the AP group had longer operative times (547.5 min) compared to PSF (385.1) and PSF-IB (370.7) (p < 0.001). Additionally, fusion length was shorter in PSF-IB (11.4) compared to AP (13.6) and PSF (12.9) (p = 0.004). There were no differences between the groups in terms of change in alignment from preoperative to 2 years postoperative. There were no differences in clinical outcomes. While postoperative complications were largely similar between groups, operative complications were higher in the AP group (31.6%) compared to the PSF (5.4%) and PSF-IB (9.1) groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While there were differences in intraoperative outcomes (operative time and fusion length), there were no differences in postoperative clinical or radiographic outcomes. AP fusion was associated with a higher rate of operative complications.

Mechanisms of lumbar spine "flattening" in adult spinal deformity: defining changes in shape that occur relative to a normative population.

PURPOSE: 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: 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.

Hip Osteoarthritis in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Severe Adult Spinal Deformity: Prevalence and Impact on Spine Surgery Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is common in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Limited data exist on the prevalence of hip OA in patients with ASD, or on its impact on baseline and postoperative alignment and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Therefore, this paper will assess the prevalence and impact of hip OA on alignment and PROMs. METHODS: Patients with ASD who underwent L1-pelvis or longer fusions were included. Two independent reviewers graded hip OA with the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) classification and stratified it by severity into non-severe (KL grade 1 or 2) and severe (KL grade 3 or 4). Radiographic parameters and PROMs were compared among 3 patient groups: Hip-Spine (hip KL grade 3 or 4 bilaterally), Unilateral (UL)-Hip (hip KL grade 3 or 4 unilaterally), or Spine (hip KL grade 1 or 2 bilaterally). RESULTS: Of 520 patients with ASD who met inclusion criteria for an OA prevalence analysis, 34% (177 of 520) had severe bilateral hip OA and unilateral or bilateral hip arthroplasty had been performed in 8.7% (45 of 520). A subset of 165 patients had all data components and were examined: 68 Hip-Spine, 32 UL-Hip, and 65 Spine. Hip-Spine patients were older (67.9 ± 9.5 years, versus 59.6 ± 10.1 years for Spine and 65.8 ± 7.5 years for UL-Hip; p < 0.001) and had a higher frailty index (4.3 ± 2.6, versus 2.7 ± 2.0 for UL-Hip and 2.9 ± 2.0 for Spine; p < 0.001). At 1 year, the groups had similar lumbar lordosis, yet the Hip-Spine patients had a worse sagittal vertebral axis (SVA) measurement (45.9 ± 45.5 mm, versus 25.1 ± 37.1 mm for UL-Hip and 19.0 ± 39.3 mm for Spine; p = 0.001). Hip-Spine patients also had worse Veterans RAND-12 Physical Component Summary scores at baseline (25.7 ± 9.3, versus 28.7 ± 9.8 for UL-Hip and 31.3 ± 10.5 for Spine; p = 0.005) and 1 year postoperatively (34.5 ± 11.4, versus 40.3 ± 10.4 for UL-Hip and 40.1 ± 10.9 for Spine; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: This study of operatively treated ASD revealed that 1 in 3 patients had severe hip OA bilaterally. Such patients with severe bilateral hip OA had worse baseline SVA and PROMs that persisted 1 year following ASD surgery, despite correction of lordosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Restoring L4-S1 Lordosis Shape in Severe Sagittal Deformity: Impact of Correction Techniques on Alignment and Complication Profile.

BACKGROUND: Severe sagittal plane deformity with loss of L4-S1 lordosis is disabling and can be improved through various surgical techniques. However, data are limited on the differing ability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to achieve alignment goals in severely malaligned patients. METHODS: Severe adult spinal deformity patients with preoperative PI-LL >20°, L4-S1 lordosis <30°, and full body radiographs and PROMs at baseline and 6-week postoperative visit were included. Patients were grouped into ALIF (1-2 level ALIF at L4-S1), PSO (L4/L5 PSO), and TLIF (1-2 level TLIF at L4-S1). Comparative analyses were performed on demographics, radiographic spinopelvic parameters, complications, and PROMs. RESULTS: Among the 96 included patients, 40 underwent ALIF, 27 underwent PSO, and 29 underwent TLIF. At baseline, cohorts had comparable age, sex, race, Edmonton frailty scores, and radiographic spinopelvic parameters (P > 0.05). However, PSO was performed more often in revision cases (P < 0.001). Following surgery, L4-S1 lordosis correction (P = 0.001) was comparable among ALIF and PSO patients and caudal lordotic apex migration (P = 0.044) was highest among ALIF patients. PSO patients had higher intraoperative estimated blood loss (P < 0.001) and motor deficits (P = 0.049), and in-hospital ICU admission (P = 0.022) and blood products given (P = 0.004), but were otherwise comparable in terms of length of stay, blood transfusion given, and postoperative admission to rehab. Likewise, 90-day postoperative complication profiles and 6-week PROMs were comparable as well. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF can restore L4-S1 sagittal alignment as powerfully as PSO, with fewer intraoperative and in-hospital complications. When feasible, ALIF is a suitable alternative to PSO and likely superior to TLIF for correcting L4-S1 lordosis among patients with severe sagittal malalignment.

Contemporary utilization of three-column osteotomy techniques in a prospective complex spinal deformity multicenter database: implications on full-body alignment and perioperative course.

BACKGROUND: Research has focused on the increased correction from a three-column osteotomy (3CO) during adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. However, an in-depth analysis on the performance of a 3CO in a cohort of complex spinal deformity cases has not been described. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively enrolled, complex ASD database. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine if three-column osteotomies demonstrate superior benefit in correction of complex sagittal deformity at the cost of increased perioperative complications. METHODS: Surgical complex adult spinal deformity patients were included and grouped into thoracolumbar 3COs compared to those who did not have a 3CO (No 3CO) (remaining cohort). Rigid deformity was defined as ΔLL less than 33% from standing to supine. Severe deformity was defined as global (SVA > 70 mm) or C7-PL > 70 mm, or lumbopelvic (PI-LL > 30°). Means comparison tests assessed correction by 3CO grade/location. Multivariate analysis controlling for baseline deformity evaluated outcomes up to six weeks compared to No 3CO. RESULTS: 648 patients were included (Mean age 61 ± 14.6 years, BMI 27.55 ± 5.8 kg/m2, levels fused: 12.6 ± 3.8). 126 underwent 3CO, a 20% higher usage than historical cohorts. 3COs were older, frail, and more likely to undergo revision (OR 5.2, 95% CI [2.6-10.6]; p < .001). 3COs were more likely to present with both severe global/lumbopelvic deformity (OR 4), 62.4% being rigid. 3COs had greater use of secondary rods (OR 4st) and incurred 4 times greater risk for: massive blood loss (> 3500 mL), longer LOS, SICU admission, perioperative wound and spine-related complications, and neurologic complications when performed below L3. 3COs had similar HRQL benefit, but higher perioperative opioid use. Mean segmental correction increased by grade (G3-21; G4-24; G5-27) and was 4 × greater than low-grade osteotomies, especially below L3 (OR 12). 3COs achieved 2 × greater spinopelvic correction. Higher grades properly distributed lordosis 50% of the time except L5. Pelvic compensation and non-response were relieved more often with increasing grade, with greater correction in all lower extremity parameters (p < .01). Due to the increased rate of complications, 3COs trended toward higher perioperative cost ($42,806 vs. $40,046, p = .086). CONCLUSION: Three-column osteotomy usage in contemporary complex spinal deformities is generally limited to more disabled individuals undergoing the most severe sagittal and coronal realignment procedures. While there is an increased perioperative cost and prolongation of length of stay with usage, these techniques represent the most powerful realignment techniques available with a dramatic impact on normalization at operative levels and reciprocal changes.

Revision Strategy for Proximal Junctional Failure: Combined Effect of Proximal Extension and Focal Correction.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively-collected multicenter database. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine optimal strategies in terms of focal angular correction and length of proximal extension during revision for PJF. METHODS: 134 patients requiring proximal extension for PJF were analyzed in this study. The correlation between amount of proximal junctional angle (PJA) reduction and recurrence of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and/or PJF was investigated. Following stratification by the degree of PJK correction and the numbers of levels extended proximally, rates of radiographic PJK (PJA >28° & ΔPJA >22°), and recurrent surgery for PJF were reported. RESULTS: Before revision, mean PJA was 27.6° ± 14.6°. Mean number of levels extended was 6.0 ± 3.3. Average PJA reduction was 18.8° ± 18.9°. A correlation between the degree of PJA reduction and rate of recurrent PJK was observed (r = -.222). Recurrent radiographic PJK (0%) and clinical PJF (4.5%) were rare in patients undergoing extension ≥8 levels, regardless of angular correction. Patients with small reductions (<5°) and small extensions (<4 levels) experienced moderate rates of recurrent PJK (19.1%) and PJF (9.5%). Patients with large reductions (>30°) and extensions <8 levels had the highest rate of recurrent PJK (31.8%) and PJF (16.0%). CONCLUSION: While the degree of focal PJK correction must be determined by the treating surgeon based upon clinical goals, recurrent PJK may be minimized by limiting reduction to <30°. If larger PJA correction is required, more extensive proximal fusion constructs may mitigate recurrent PJK/PJF rates.

Dysphagia After Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management.

Anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) is a surgical intervention widely used for a myriad of indications including degenerative, oncologic, inflammatory, traumatic, and congenital spinal conditions. A primary concern for surgeons performing ACSS is the postoperative development of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Current literature reports a wide incidence of this complication ranging from 1 to 79%. Dysphagia after ACSS is multifactorial, with common risk factors being prolonged duration of operation, revision surgeries, multilevel surgeries, and use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. Many technical strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of postoperative dysphagia, including the development of low-profile implants and retropharyngeal local steroid application. In this article, we review the most recent literature regarding the epidemiology and pathophysiology, diagnostic criteria, risk factors, and management of dysphagia after ACSS.

Impact of Self-Reported Loss of Balance and Gait Disturbance on Outcomes following Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate if imbalance influences complication rates, radiological outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Methods: ASD patients with baseline and 2-year radiographic and PROMs were included. Patients were grouped according to whether they answered yes or no to a recent history of pre-operative loss of balance. The groups were propensity-matched by age, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), and surgical invasiveness score. Results: In total, 212 patients were examined (106 in each group). Patients with gait imbalance had worse baseline PROM measures, including Oswestry disability index (45.2 vs. 36.6), SF-36 mental component score (44 vs. 51.8), and SF-36 physical component score (p < 0.001 for all). After 2 years, patients with gait imbalance had less pelvic tilt correction (-1.2 vs. -3.6°, p = 0.039) for a comparable PI-LL correction (-11.9 vs. -15.1°, p = 0.144). Gait imbalance patients had higher rates of radiographic proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) (26.4% vs. 14.2%) and implant-related complications (47.2% vs. 34.0%). After controlling for age, baseline sagittal parameters, PI-LL correction, and comorbidities, patients with imbalance had 2.2-times-increased odds of PJK after 2 years. Conclusions: Patients with a self-reported loss of balance/unsteady gait have significantly worse PROMs and higher risk of PJK.

Stronger association of objective physical metrics with baseline patient-reported outcome measures than preoperative standing sagittal parameters for adult spinal deformity patients.

OBJECTIVE: Sagittal alignment measured on standing radiography remains a fundamental component of surgical planning for adult spinal deformity (ASD). However, the relationship between classic sagittal alignment parameters and objective metrics, such as walking time (WT) and grip strength (GS), remains unknown. The objective of this work was to determine if ASD patients with worse baseline sagittal malalignment have worse objective physical metrics and if those metrics have a stronger relationship to patient-reported outcome metrics (PROMs) than standing alignment. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of a multicenter ASD cohort. ASD patients underwent baseline testing with the timed up-and-go 6-m walk test (seconds) and for GS (pounds). Baseline PROMs were surveyed, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22r, and Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) scores. Standard spinopelvic measurements were obtained (sagittal vertical axis [SVA], pelvic tilt [PT], and mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis [PI-LL], and SRS-Schwab ASD classification). Univariate and multivariable linear regression modeling was performed to interrogate associations between objective physical metrics, sagittal parameters, and PROMs. RESULTS: In total, 494 patients were included, with mean ± SD age 61 ± 14 years, and 68% were female. Average WT was 11.2 ± 6.1 seconds and average GS was 56.6 ± 24.9 lbs. With increasing PT, PI-LL, and SVA quartiles, WT significantly increased (p < 0.05). SRS-Schwab type N patients demonstrated a significantly longer average WT (12.5 ± 6.2 seconds), and type T patients had a significantly shorter WT time (7.9 ± 2.7 seconds, p = 0.03). With increasing PT quartiles, GS significantly decreased (p < 0.05). SRS-Schwab type T patients had a significantly higher average GS (68.8 ± 27.8 lbs), and type L patients had a significantly lower average GS (51.6 ± 20.4 lbs, p = 0.03). In the frailty-adjusted multivariable linear regression analyses, WT was more strongly associated with PROMs than sagittal parameters. GS was more strongly associated with ODI and PROMIS Physical Function scores. CONCLUSIONS: The authors observed that increasing baseline sagittal malalignment is associated with slower WT, and possibly weaker GS, in ASD patients. WT has a stronger relationship to PROMs than standing alignment parameters. Objective physical metrics likely offer added value to standard spinopelvic measurements in ASD evaluation and surgical planning.

Factors Associated With the Maintenance of Cost-effectiveness at Five Years in Adult Spinal Deformity Corrective Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: 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.

Machine learning clustering of adult spinal deformity patients identifies four prognostic phenotypes: a multicenter prospective cohort analysis with single surgeon external validation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: 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: To qualitatively segment adult spinal deformity patients using machine learning-based clustering on a large, multicenter, prospectively gathered cohort. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: 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: 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: 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: 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.

Impact of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis on Full Body Sagittal Alignment and Compensation for Sagittal Spinal Deformity.

STUDY DESIGN: 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 527 preoperative 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°, and 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 that with increasing T1PA, pelvic tilt correlated inversely with hip osteoarthritis and positively with knee osteoarthritis ( r2 =0.812). Hip osteoarthritis decreased compensation through sacrofemoral angle (ß-coefficient=-0.206). Knee and hip osteoarthritis contributed to greater knee flexion (ß-coefficients=0.215, 0.101; respectively). For pelvic shift, only hip osteoarthritis significantly contributed to the model (ß-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.

Development of a modified frailty index for adult spinal deformities independent of functional changes following surgical correction: a true baseline risk assessment tool.

PURPOSE: To develop a simplified, modified frailty index for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients dependent on objective clinical factors. METHODS: ASD patients with baseline (BL) and 2-year (2Y) follow-up were included. Factors with the largest R2 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: Five hundred thirty-one ASD patients (59.5 yrs, 79.5% F) were included. The final model had a R2 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.

Are insufficient corrections a major factor in distal junctional kyphosis? A simulated analysis of cervical deformity correction using in-construct measurements.

OBJECTIVE: The present study utilized recently developed in-construct measurements in simulations of cervical deformity surgery in order to assess undercorrection and predict distal junctional kyphosis (DJK). METHODS: A retrospective review of a database of operative cervical deformity patients was analyzed for severe DJK and mild DJK. C2-lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) sagittal angle (SA) was measured postoperatively, and the correction was simulated in the preoperative radiograph in order to match the C2-LIV by using the planning software. Linear regression analysis that used C2 pelvic angle (CPA) and pelvic tilt (PT) determined the simulated PT that matched the virtual CPA. Linear regression analysis was used to determine the C2-T1 SA, C2-T4 SA, and C2-T10 SA that corresponded to DJK of 20° and cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) of 40 mm. RESULTS: Sixty-nine cervical deformity patients were included. Severe and mild DJK occurred in 11 (16%) and 22 (32%) patients, respectively; 3 (4%) required DJK revision. Simulated corrections demonstrated that severe and mild DJK patients had worse alignment compared to non-DJK patients in terms of cSVA (42.5 mm vs 33.0 mm vs 23.4 mm, p < 0.001) and C2-LIV SVA (68.9 mm vs 57.3 mm vs 36.8 mm, p < 0.001). Linear regression revealed the relationships between in-construct measures (C2-T1 SA, C2-T4 SA, and C2-T10 SA), cSVA, and change in DJK (all R > 0.57, p < 0.001). A cSVA of 40 mm corresponded to C2-T4 SA of 10.4° and C2-T10 SA of 28.0°. A DJK angle change of 10° corresponded to C2-T4 SA of 5.8° and C2-T10 SA of 20.1°. CONCLUSIONS: Simulated cervical deformity corrections demonstrated that severe DJK patients have insufficient corrections compared to patients without DJK. In-construct measures assess sagittal alignment within the fusion separate from DJK and subjacent compensation. They can be useful as intraoperative tools to gauge the adequacy of cervical deformity correction.