Revision of Harrington rod constructs: a single-center's experience with this homogenous adult spinal deformity population at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To evaluate radiographic and clinical outcomes following revision surgery after HRC fusions. METHODS: Single-institution, retrospective study of patients revised following HRC with minimum 2-year follow-up post-revision. Demographics, perioperative information, radiographic parameters, complications, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were collected. Radiographic parameters included global alignment, coronal and sagittal measurements pre and postoperatively, as well as final follow-up time points. RESULTS: 26 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 3.3 ± 1.1 years. Mean age was 55.5 ± 7.8 years, BMI 25.2 ± 5.8, and 22 (85%) were females. Instrumented levels increased from 9.7 ± 2.8 to 16.0 ± 2.2. Five (19.2%) patients underwent lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomies, and 23 (88.4%) had interbody fusions. Patients significantly improved in all radiographic parameters at immediate and final follow-up (p < 0.005), except for thoracic kyphosis and pelvic incidence (p > 0.05). Correction was maintained from immediate postop to final follow-up (p > 0.05). 20 (76.9%) of patients experienced a complication at some point within the follow-up period with the most common being a lumbar nerve root deficit (n = 7). However, only one patient had a nerve root deficit at final follow-up, that being a 4/5 unilateral anterior tibialis function. 5 (19.2%) patients required further revision within a mean of 1.8 ± 1.1 years. On average, patients had an improvement in ODI score by final follow-up (35.6 ± 16.8 vs 25.4 ± 19.8, p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Patients revised for HRCs significantly improve, both clinically and radiographically by final follow-up. This group did have a propensity for distal lumbar root neurological issues, which were common but all patients except for one, recovered to full strength by two-year follow-up.

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.

Prospective Validation of the Spinal Cord Shape Classification System in the Prediction of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Data Loss: Assessing the Risk of Spinal Cord Data Loss During Spinal Deformity Correction.

BACKGROUND: The Spinal Cord Shape Classification System (SCSCS) class has been associated with spinal cord monitoring data loss during spinal deformity surgery. The objective of the current study was to prospectively validate the SCSCS as a predictor of spinal cord monitoring data loss during spinal deformity surgery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of consecutive patients who were undergoing primary deformity surgery at a single institution from 2018 to 2023 and whose major curve was in the spinal cord region was undertaken. Spinal cord morphology at the apex of the major curve on preoperative axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was used to categorize patients into 3 spinal cord shape types based on the SCSCS. The primary outcome was intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) data loss related to spinal cord dysfunction. Demographics and surgical and radiographic variables were compared between patients with IONM data loss and those without loss. Predictors of IONM loss were determined using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients (168 adult, 88 pediatric) were included and were separated into 3 SCSCS types: 110 (43.0%) with Type I, 105 (41.0%) with Type II, and 41 (16.0%) with Type III. IONM loss was observed in 30 (11.7%) of the 256 patients, including 7 (6.4%) of 110 with SCSCS Type I, 7 (6.7%) of 105 with Type II, and 16 (39.0%) of 41 with Type III. IONM loss was associated with SCSCS Type III, the preoperative deformity angular ratio, performance of 3-column osteotomies, greater operative time, greater transfusion volume, and greater postoperative sagittal corrections. SCSCS type was the strongest independent predictor of IONM data loss. SCSCS Type III had the greatest odds of IONM loss (odds ratio [OR] = 6.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45 to 18.23 compared with Types I and II combined). The overall predictive performance with respect to IONM loss (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.827) was considered excellent. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective cohort study of patients undergoing spinal deformity correction confirmed that patients with a Type-III spinal cord shape had greater odds of IONM loss. Inclusion of the SCSCS in preoperative risk stratification and intraoperative management of spinal deformity corrective surgery is recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Do adult spinal deformity patients who achieve and maintain PI-LL < 10 have better patient-reported and clinical outcomes compared to patients with PI-LL ≥ 10? A propensity score-matched analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether patients with spinopelvic mismatch (PI-LL ≥ 10) report worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared to patients who achieve PI-LL < 10 at 2-year postop. METHODS: In this retrospective study, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to analyze patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion due to deformity, as defined by one or more of the following criteria: PI-LL ≥ 25°, T1 pelvic angle ≥ 30°, sagittal vertical axis ≥ 15 cm, thoracic scoliosis ≥ 70°, thoracolumbar scoliosis ≥ 50°, coronal malalignment ≥ 7 cm, or those who underwent a three-column osteotomy or fusion with ≥ 12 levels. Key outcomes were total Scoliosis Research Society-22r, Oswestry Disability Index (PROs), and reoperation at 1- and 2-year postop. Patients were dichotomized based on their 2-year alignment: PI-LL ≥ 10° and PI-LL < 10°. A multivariable logistic regression model identified factors associated with achieving PI-LL < 10°, and independent predictors were matched using propensity score matching. Binary outcomes within matched cohorts were analyzed using the McNemar test, while continuous outcomes were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four patients with 2-year follow-up were included; mean age was 50.5 (standard error mean (SEM): 1.4) years, body mass index was 24.1(SEM 1.0), and number of operative levels was 13.5 (SEM 0.3). 84 (51.2%) and 80 (48.8%) patients achieved PI-LL < 10 and PI-LL ≥ 10 at 2-year follow-up, respectively. Baseline pelvic incidence [odds ratio (OR): 0.96 (95% CI 0.92-0.99)] and baseline PI-LL [OR: 0.95 (95% CI 0.9-0.99)] were independent predictors of achieving PI-LL < 10 at 2 years. When comparing propensity matched pairs, no significant differences were found in baseline PROs. At both 1- and 2-year follow-up, outcomes on the SRS-22r scale were nearly identical for both groups (function [4.1(0.1) vs 4.0 (0.1), P = 0.75] ,Pain [3.9 (0.2) vs 3.9 (0.2), P = 0.86], appearance [4.2 (0.2) vs 3.8 (0.2), P = 0.08], mental health [4.1 (0.2) vs 4.1 (0.1), P = 0.96], satisfaction [4.4 (0.2) vs 4.4 (0.2), P = 0.72], and total [90.2 (2.5) vs 88.1 (2.5), P = 0.57]). Additionally, ODI scores at 2 years were comparable [18.1 (2.9) vs 22.4 (2.9), P = 0.30]. The 90-day reoperation rate was 2.6% (one patient) in both matched cohorts (P > 0.99). There was no significant difference in 1-year (P > 0.9999) or 2-year (P = 0.2207) reoperation rates between the groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who achieve and maintain PI-LL < 10 2-years postop following adult spinal deformity surgery have nearly identical SRS-22r and ODI outcomes, and comparable 2-year reoperation rates as compared to patients who have PI-LL ≥ 10.

Adult spinal deformity patients revised for pseudarthrosis have comparable two-year outcomes to those not undergoing any revision surgery.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate whether adult spinal deformity patients undergoing revision for symptomatic pseudarthrosis have comparable two-year outcomes as patients who do not experience pseudarthrosis. METHODS: Patients whose indexed procedure was revision for pseudarthrosis (pseudo) were compared with patients who underwent a primary procedure and did not have pseudarthrosis by 2Y post-op (non-pseudo). Patients were propensity-matched (PSM) based on baseline (BL) sagittal alignment, specifically C7SVA and CrSVA-Hip. Key outcomes were 2Y PROs (SRS and ODI) and reoperation. All patients had a minimum follow-up period of two years. RESULTS: A total of 224 patients with min 2-year FU were included (pseudo = 42, non-pseudo = 182). Compared to non-pseudo, pseudo-patients were more often female (P = 0.0018) and had worse BL sagittal alignment, including T1PA (P = 0.02], C2-C7 SVA [P = 0.0002], and CrSVA-Hip [P = 0.004]. After 37 PSM pairs were generated, there was no significant difference in demographics, BL and 2Y alignment, or operative/procedural variables. PSM pairs did not report any significantly different PROs at BL. Consistently, at 2Y, there were no significant differences in PROs, including SRS function [3.9(0.2) vs 3.7(0.2), P = 0.44], pain [4.0 (0.2) vs. 3.57 (0.2), P = 0.12], and ODI [25.7 (5.2) vs 27.7 (3.7), P = 0.76]. There were no differences in 1Y (10.8% vs 10.8%, P > 0.99) and 2Y (13.2% vs 15.8%, P = 0.64) reoperation, PJK rate (2.6% vs 10.5%, P = 0.62), or implant failure (2.6% vs 10.5%, P = 0.37). Notably, only 2 patients (5.4%) had recurrent pseudarthrosis following revision. Kaplan-Meier curves indicated that patients undergoing intervention for pseudarthrosis had comparable overall reoperation-free survival (log-rank test, χ2 = 0.1975 and P = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing revision for pseudarthrosis have comparable PROs and clinical outcomes as patients who never experienced pseudarthrosis. Recurrence of symptomatic pseudarthrosis was infrequent.