The Shape of the Fused Spine is Associated With Acute Proximal Junctional Kyphosis in Adult Spinal Deformity: An Assessment Based on Vertebral Pelvic Angles.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospective database. OBJECTIVES: Vertebral pelvic angles (VPAs) account for complexity in spine shape by assessing the relative position of each vertebra with regard to the pelvis. This study uses VPAs to investigate the shape of the fused spine after T10-pelvis fusion, in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD), and then explores its association with proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). METHODS: Included patients had radiographic evidence of ASD and underwent T10-pelvis realignment. VPAs were used to construct a virtual shape of the post-operative spine. VPA-predicted and actual shapes were then compared between patients with and without PJK. Logistic regression was used to identify components of the VPA-based model that were independent predictors of PJK occurrence and post-operative shape. RESULTS: 287 patients were included. VPA-predicted shape was representative of the true post-operative contour, with a mean point-to-point error of 1.6-2.9% of the T10-S1 spine length. At 6-weeks follow-up, 102 patients (35.5%) developed PJK. Comparison of the true post-operative shapes demonstrated that PJK patients had more posteriorly translated vertebrae from L3 to T7 (P < .001). Logistic regression demonstrated that L3PA (P = .047) and T11PA (P < .001) were the best independent predictors of PJK and were, in conjunction with pelvic incidence, sufficient to reproduce the actual spinal contour (error <3%). CONCLUSIONS: VPAs are reliable in reproducing the true, post-operative spine shape in patients undergoing T10-pelvis fusion for ASD. Because VPAs are independent of patient position, L3PA, T11PA, and PI measurements can be used for both pre- and intra-operative planning to ensure optimal alignment.

Evolution of Adult Cervical Deformity Surgery Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Based on a Multicenter Prospective Study: Are Behaviors and Outcomes Changing With Experience?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Assess changes in outcomes and surgical approaches for adult cervical deformity surgery over time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As the population ages and the prevalence of cervical deformity increases, corrective surgery has been increasingly seen as a viable treatment. Dramatic surgical advancements and expansion of knowledge on this procedure have transpired over the years, but the impact on cervical deformity surgery is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult cervical deformity patients (18 yrs and above) with complete baseline and up to the two-year health-related quality of life and radiographic data were included. Descriptive analysis included demographics, radiographic, and surgical details. Patients were grouped into early (2013-2014) and late (2015-2017) by date of surgery. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to assess differences in surgical, radiographic, and clinical outcomes over time. RESULTS: A total of 119 cervical deformity patients met the inclusion criteria. Early group consisted of 72 patients, and late group consisted of 47. The late group had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 0.72), more cerebrovascular disease (6% vs. 0%, both P <0.05), and no difference in age, frailty, deformity, or cervical rigidity. Controlling for baseline deformity and age, late group underwent fewer three-column osteotomies [odds ratio (OR)=0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06-0.76, P =0.014]. At the last follow-up, late group had less patients with: a moderate/high Ames horizontal modifier (71.7% vs. 88.2%), and overcorrection in pelvic tilt (4.3% vs. 18.1%, both P <0.05). Controlling for baseline deformity, age, levels fused, and three-column osteotomies, late group experienced fewer adverse events (OR=0.15, 95% CI: 0.28-0.8, P =0.03), and neurological complications (OR=0.1, 95% CI: 0.012-0.87, P =0.03). CONCLUSION: Despite a population with greater comorbidity and associated risk, outcomes remained consistent between early and later time periods, indicating general improvements in care. The later cohort demonstrated fewer three-column osteotomies, less suboptimal realignments, and concomitant reductions in adverse events and neurological complications. This may suggest a greater facility with less invasive techniques.

Operative treatment outcomes for adult cervical deformity: a prospective multicenter assessment with mean 3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Adult cervical deformity (ACD) has high complication rates due to surgical complexity and patient frailty. Very few studies have focused on longer-term outcomes of operative ACD treatment. The objective of this study was to assess minimum 2-year outcomes and complications of ACD surgery. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective observational study was performed at 13 centers across the United States to evaluate surgical outcomes for ACD. Demographics, complications, radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; Neck Disability Index, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D], and numeric rating scale [NRS] for neck and back pain) were evaluated, and analyses focused on patients with ≥ 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Of 169 patients with ACD who were eligible for the study, 102 (60.4%) had a minimum 2-year follow-up (mean 3.4 years, range 2-8.1 years). The mean age at surgery was 62 years (SD 11 years). Surgical approaches included anterior-only (22.8%), posterior-only (39.6%), and combined (37.6%). PROMs significantly improved from baseline to last follow-up, including Neck Disability Index (from 47.3 to 33.0) and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (from 12.0 to 12.8; for patients with baseline score ≤ 14), neck pain NRS (from 6.8 to 3.8), back pain NRS (from 5.5 to 4.8), EQ-5D score (from 0.74 to 0.78), and EQ-5D visual analog scale score (from 59.5 to 66.6) (all p ≤ 0.04). More than half of the patients (n = 58, 56.9%) had at least one complication, with the most common complications including dysphagia, distal junctional kyphosis, instrumentation failure, and cardiopulmonary events. The patients who did not achieve 2-year follow-up (n = 67) were similar to study patients based on baseline demographics, comorbidities, and PROMs. Over the course of follow-up, 23 of the total 169 enrolled patients were reported to have died. Notably, these represent all-cause mortalities during the course of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter, prospective analysis demonstrates that operative treatment for ACD provides significant improvement of health-related quality of life at a mean 3.4-year follow-up, despite high complication rates and a high rate of all-cause mortality that is reflective of the overall frailty of this patient population. To the authors' knowledge, this study represents the largest and most comprehensive prospective effort to date designed to assess the intermediate-term outcomes and complications of operative treatment for ACD.

Outcomes of operative treatment for adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter assessment with mean 4-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The current literature has primarily focused on the 2-year outcomes of operative adult spinal deformity (ASD) treatment. Longer term durability is important given the invasiveness, complications, and costs of these procedures. The aim of this study was to assess minimum 3-year outcomes and complications of ASD surgery. METHODS: Operatively treated ASD patients were assessed at baseline, follow-up, and through mailings. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r) questionnaire, mental component summary (MCS) and physical component summary (PCS) of the SF-36, and numeric rating scale (NRS) for back and leg pain. Complications were classified as perioperative (≤ 90 days), delayed (90 days to 2 years), and long term (≥ 2 years). Analyses focused on patients with minimum 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: Of 569 patients, 427 (75%) with minimum 3-year follow-up (mean ± SD [range] 4.1 ± 1.1 [3.0-9.6] years) had a mean age of 60.8 years and 75% were women. Operative treatment included a posterior approach for 426 patients (99%), with a mean ± SD 12 ± 4 fusion levels. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion was performed in 35 (8%) patients, and 89 (21%) underwent 3-column osteotomy. All PROMs improved significantly from baseline to last follow-up, including scores on ODI (45.4 to 30.5), PCS (31.0 to 38.5), MCS (45.3 to 50.6), SRS-22r total (2.7 to 3.6), SRS-22r activity (2.8 to 3.5), SRS-22r pain (2.3 to 3.4), SRS-22r appearance (2.4 to 3.5), SRS-22r mental (3.4 to 3.7), SRS-22r satisfaction (2.7 to 4.1), NRS for back pain (7.1 to 3.8), and NRS for leg pain (4.8 to 3.0) (all p < 0.001). Degradations in some outcome measures were observed between the 2-year and last follow-up evaluations, but the magnitudes of these degradations were modest and arguably not clinically significant. Overall, 277 (65%) patients had at least 1 complication, including 185 (43%) perioperative, 118 (27%) delayed, and 56 (13%) long term. Notably, the 142 patients who did not achieve 3-year follow-up were similar to the study patients in terms of demographic characteristics, deformities, and baseline PROMs and had similar rates and types of complications. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective multicenter analysis demonstrated that operative ASD treatment provided significant improvement of health-related quality of life at minimum 3-year follow-up (mean 4.1 years), suggesting that the benefits of surgery for ASD remain durable at longer follow-up. These findings should prove useful for counseling, cost-effectiveness assessments, and efforts to improve the safety of care.

Trends in Intraoperative Assessment of Spinal Alignment: A Survey of Spine Surgeons in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey. OBJECTIVES: To characterize national practices of and shortcomings surrounding intraoperative assessments of spinal alignment. METHODS: Spine surgeons in the US were surveyed to analyze their experience with assessing spinal alignment intraoperatively. RESULTS: 108 US spine surgeons from 77 surgical centers with an average of 19.2 + 8.8 years of surgical experience completed the survey. To assess alignment intraoperatively, 84% (91/108) use C-arm or spot radiographs, 40% (43/108) use full-length radiographs, and 20% utilize the T-bar (22/108). 88% of respondents' surgical centers (93/106) possessed a navigation camera and 63% of respondents (68/108) report using surgical navigation for 40% of their deformity cases on average. Reported deterrents for using current technology to assess alignment were workflow interruption (54%, 58/108), expense (33%, 36/108), and added radiation exposure (26%, 28/108). 87% of respondents (82/94) reported a need for improvement in current capabilities of making intraoperative assessments of spinal alignment. CONCLUSIONS: Corrective surgery for spinal deformity is a complex procedure that requires a high level of expertise to perform safely. The majority of surveyed surgeons primarily rely on radiographs for intraoperative assessments of alignment. Despite the majority of surveyed surgical practices possessing navigation cameras, they are utilized only for a minority of spinal deformity cases. With the majority of surveyed surgeons reporting a need for improvement in technology to assess spinal alignment intraoperatively, 3 of the top design considerations should include workflow interruption, expense, and radiation exposure.

Assessment of Adult Spinal Deformity Complication Timing and Impact on 2-Year Outcomes Using a Comprehensive Adult Spinal Deformity Classification System.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected multicenter registry data. OBJECTIVE: To identify rates and timing of postoperative complications in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients, the impact of complication type and timing on health related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes, and the impact of complication timing on readmission and reoperation rates. Better understanding of complication timing and impact on HRQoL may improve patient selection, preoperative counseling, and postoperative complication surveillance. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ASD is common and associated with significant disability. Surgical correction is often pursued, but is associated with high complication rates. The International Spine Study Group, AO Spinal Deformity Forum, and European Spine Study Group have developed a new complication classification system for ASD (ISSG-AO spine complications classification system). METHODS: The ISSG-AO spine complications classification system was utilized to assess complications occurring over the 2-year postoperative time period amongst a multicenter, prospectively enrolled cohort of patients who underwent surgery for ASD. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were established for each complication type. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline disability and comorbidities. Associations between each complication type and HRQoL, and reoperation/readmission and complication timing, were assessed. RESULTS: Of 584 patients meeting inclusion criteria, cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, infection, early adverse events, and operative complications contributed to a rapid initial decrease in complication-free survival. Implant-related, radiographic, and neurologic complications substantially decreased long-term complication-free survival. Only radiographic and implant-related complications were significantly associated with worse 2-year HRQoL outcomes. Need for readmission and/or reoperation was most frequent among those experiencing complications after postoperative day 90. CONCLUSION: Surgeons should recognize that long-term complications have a substantial negative impact on HRQoL, and should carefully monitor for implant-related and radiographic complications over long-term follow-up.Level of Evidence: 4.

Risk-benefit assessment of major versus minor osteotomies for flexible and rigid cervical deformity correction.

INTRODUCTION: Osteotomies are commonly performed to correct sagittal malalignment in cervical deformity (CD). However, the risks and benefits of performing a major osteotomy for cervical deformity correction have been understudied. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the risks and benefits of performing a major osteotomy for CD correction. METHODS: Patients stratified based on major osteotomy (MAJ) or minor (MIN). Independent t-tests and Chi-squared tests were used to assess differences between MAJ and MIN. A sub-analysis compared patients with flexible versus rigid CL. RESULTS: 137 CD patients were included (62 years, 65% F). 19.0% CD patients underwent a MAJ osteotomy. After propensity score matching for cSVA, 52 patients were included. About 19.0% CD patients underwent a MAJ osteotomy. MAJ patients had more minor complications (P = 0.045), despite similar surgical outcomes as MIN. At 3M, MAJ and MIN patients had similar NDI, mJOA, and EQ5D scores, however by 1 year, MAJ patients reached MCID for NDI less than MIN patients (P = 0.003). MAJ patients with rigid deformities had higher rates of complications (79% vs. 29%, P = 0.056) and were less likely to show improvement in NDI at 1 year (0.95 vs. 0.54, P = 0.027). Both groups had similar sagittal realignment at 1 year (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cervical deformity patients who underwent a major osteotomy had similar clinical outcomes at 3-months but worse outcomes at 1-year as compared to minor osteotomies, likely due to differences in baseline deformity. Patients with rigid deformities who underwent a major osteotomy had higher complication rates and worse clinical improvement despite similar realignment at 1 year.

Operative Treatment of Severe Scoliosis in Symptomatic Adults: Multicenter Assessment of Outcomes and Complications With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Few reports focus on adults with severe scoliosis. OBJECTIVE: To report surgical outcomes and complications for adults with severe scoliosis. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective review was performed on operatively treated adults with severe scoliosis (minimum coronal Cobb: thoracic [TH] ≥ 75°, thoracolumbar [TL] ≥ 50°, lumbar [L] ≥ 50°). RESULTS: Of 178 consecutive patients, 146 (82%; TH = 8, TL = 88, L = 50) achieved minimum 2-yr follow-up (mean age = 53.9 ± 13.2 yr, 92% women). Operative details included posterior-only (58%), 3-column osteotomy (14%), iliac fixation (72%), and mean posterior fusion = 13.2 ± 3.7 levels. Global coronal alignment (3.8 to 2.8 cm, P = .001) and maximum coronal Cobb improved significantly (P ≤.020): TH (84º to 57º; correction = 32%), TL (67º to 35º; correction = 48%), L (61º to 29º; correction = 53%). Sagittal alignment improved significantly (P < .001), most notably for L: C7-sagittal vertical axis 6.7 to 2.5 cm, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch 18º to 3º. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) improved significantly (P < .001), most notably for L: Oswestry Disability Index (44.4 ± 20.5 to 26.1 ± 18.3), Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary (30.2 ± 10.8 to 39.9 ± 9.8), and Scoliosis Research Society-22r Total (2.9 ± 0.7 to 3.8 ± 0.7). Minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds were achieved in 36% to 75% and 29% to 51%, respectively. Ninety-four (64%) patients had ≥1 complication (total = 191, 92 minor/99 major, most common = rod fracture [13.0%]). Fifty-seven reoperations were performed in 37 (25.3%) patients, with most common indications deep wound infection (11) and rod fracture (10). CONCLUSION: Although results demonstrated high rates of complications, operative treatment of adults with severe scoliosis was associated with significant improvements in mean HRQL outcome measures for the study cohort at minimum 2-yr follow-up.

Lateral Thoracolumbar Listhesis as an Independent Predictor of Disability in Adult Scoliosis Patients: Multivariable Assessment Before and After Surgical Realignment.

BACKGROUND: Lateral (ie, coronal) vertebral listhesis may contribute to disability in adult scoliosis patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess for a correlation between lateral listhesis and disability among patients with adult scoliosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective multi-center analysis of prospectively collected data. Patients eligible for a minimum of 2-yr follow-up and with coronal plane deformity (defined as maximum Cobb angle ≥20º) were included (n = 724). Outcome measures were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and leg pain numeric scale rating. Lateral thoracolumbar listhesis was measured as the maximum vertebral listhesis as a percent of the superior endplate across T1-L5 levels. Linear and logistic regression was utilized, as appropriate. Multivariable analyses adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, surgical invasiveness, maximum Cobb angle, and T1-PA. Minimally clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI was defined as 12.8. RESULTS: In total, 724 adult patients were assessed. The mean baseline maximum lateral thoracolumbar listhesis was 18.3% (standard deviation 9.7%). The optimal statistical grouping for lateral listhesis was empirically determined to be none/mild (<6.7%), moderate (6.7-15.4%), and severe (≥15.4%). In multivariable analysis, listhesis of moderate and severe vs none/mild was associated with worse baseline ODI (none/mild = 33.7; moderate = 41.6; severe = 43.9; P < .001 for both comparisons) and leg pain NSR (none/mild = 2.9, moderate = 4.0, severe = 5.1, P < .05). Resolution of severe lateral listhesis to none/mild was independently associated with increased likelihood of reaching MCID in ODI at 2 yr postoperatively (odds ratio 2.1 95% confidence interval 1.2-3.7, P = .0097). CONCLUSION: Lateral thoracolumbar listhesis is associated with worse baseline disability among adult scoliosis patients. Resolution of severe lateral listhesis following deformity correction was independently associated with increased likelihood of reaching MCID in ODI at 2-yr follow-up.

Multicenter assessment of outcomes and complications associated with transforaminal versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion for fractional curve correction.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have compared fractional curve correction after long fusion between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for adult symptomatic thoracolumbar/lumbar scoliosis (ASLS). The objective of this study was to compare fractional correction, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and complications associated with L4-S1 TLIF versus those of ALIF as an operative treatment of ASLS. METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed a prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity database. Inclusion required a fractional curve ≥ 10°, a thoracolumbar/lumbar curve ≥ 30°, index TLIF or ALIF performed at L4-5 and/or L5-S1, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. TLIF and ALIF patients were propensity matched according to the number and type of interbody fusion at L4-S1. RESULTS: Of 135 potentially eligible consecutive patients, 106 (78.5%) achieved the minimum 2-year follow-up (mean ± SD age 60.6 ± 9.3 years, 85% women, 44.3% underwent TLIF, and 55.7% underwent ALIF). Index operations had mean ± SD 12.2 ± 3.6 posterior levels, 86.6% of patients underwent iliac fixation, 67.0% underwent TLIF/ALIF at L4-5, and 84.0% underwent TLIF/ALIF at L5-S1. Compared with TLIF patients, ALIF patients had greater cage height (10.9 ± 2.1 mm for TLIF patients vs 14.5 ± 3.0 mm for ALIF patients, p = 0.001) and lordosis (6.3° ± 1.6° for TLIF patients vs 17.0° ± 9.9° for ALIF patients, p = 0.001) and longer operative duration (6.7 ± 1.5 hours for TLIF patients vs 8.9 ± 2.5 hours for ALIF patients, p < 0.001). In all patients, final alignment improved significantly in terms of the fractional curve (20.2° ± 7.0° to 6.9° ± 5.2°), maximum coronal Cobb angle (55.0° ± 14.8° to 23.9° ± 14.3°), C7 sagittal vertical axis (5.1 ± 6.2 cm to 2.3 ± 5.4 cm), pelvic tilt (24.6° ± 8.1° to 22.7° ± 9.5°), and lumbar lordosis (32.3° ± 18.8° to 51.4° ± 14.1°) (all p < 0.05). Matched analysis demonstrated comparable fractional correction (-13.6° ± 6.7° for TLIF patients vs -13.6° ± 8.1° for ALIF patients, p = 0.982). In all patients, final HRQL improved significantly in terms of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (42.4 ± 16.3 to 24.2 ± 19.9), physical component summary (PCS) score of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (32.6 ± 9.3 to 41.3 ± 11.7), and Scoliosis Research Society-22r score (2.9 ± 0.6 to 3.7 ± 0.7) (all p < 0.05). Matched analysis demonstrated worse ODI (30.9 ± 21.1 for TLIF patients vs 17.9 ± 17.1 for ALIF patients, p = 0.017) and PCS (38.3 ± 12.0 for TLIF patients vs 45.3 ± 10.1 for ALIF patients, p = 0.020) scores for TLIF patients at the last follow-up (despite no differences in these parameters at baseline). The rates of total complications were similar (76.6% for TLIF patients vs 71.2% for ALIF patients, p = 0.530), but significantly more TLIF patients had rod fracture (28.6% of TLIF patients vs 7.1% of ALIF patients, p = 0.036). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that a 1-mm increase in L4-5 TLIF cage height led to a 2.2° reduction in L4 coronal tilt (p = 0.011), and a 1° increase in L5-S1 ALIF cage lordosis led to a 0.4° increase in L5-S1 segmental lordosis (p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Operative treatment of ASLS with L4-S1 TLIF versus ALIF demonstrated comparable mean fractional curve correction (66.7% vs 64.8%), despite use of significantly larger, more lordotic ALIF cages. TLIF cage height had a significant impact on leveling L4 coronal tilt, whereas ALIF cage lordosis had a significant impact on restoration of lumbosacral lordosis. The advantages of TLIF may include reduced operative duration and hospitalization; however, associated HRQL was inferior and more rod fractures were detected in the TLIF patients included in this study.

Redefining cervical spine deformity classification through novel cutoffs: An assessment of the relationship between radiographic parameters and functional neurological outcomes.

PURPOSE: The aim is to investigate the relationship between cervical parameters and the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (mJOA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgical adult cervical deformity (CD) patients were included in this retrospective analysis. After determining data followed a parametric distribution through the Shapiro-Wilk Normality (P = 0.15, P > 0.05), Pearson correlations were run for radiographic parameters and mJOA. For significant correlations, logistic regressions were performed to determine a threshold of radiographic measures for which the correlation with mJOA scores was most significant. mJOA score of 14 and <12 reported cut-off values for moderate (M) and severe (S) disability. New modifiers were compared to an existing classification using Spearman's rho and logistic regression analyses to predict outcomes up to 2 years. RESULTS: A total of 123 CD patients were included (60.5 years, 65%F, 29.1 kg/m2). For significant baseline factors from Pearson correlations, the following thresholds were predicted: MGS (M:-12 to-9° and 0°-19°, P = 0.020; S: >19° and <-12°, χ2= 4.291, P = 0.036), TS-CL (M: 26°to 45°, P = 0.201; S: >45°, χ2= 7.8, P = 0.005), CL (M:-21° to 3°, χ2= 8.947, P = 0.004; S: <-21°, χ2= 9.3, P = 0.009), C2-T3 (M: -35° to -25°, χ2= 5.485, P = 0.046; S: <-35°, χ2= 4.1, P = 0.041), C2 Slope (M: 33° to 49°, P = 0.122; S: >49°, χ2= 5.7, P = 0.008), and Frailty (Mild: 0.18-0.27, P = 0.129; Severe: >0.27, P = 0.002). Compared to existing Ames- International Spine Study Group classification, the novel thresholds demonstrated significant predictive value for reoperation and mortality up to 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these radiographic values can be utilized in refining existing classifications and developing collective understanding of severity and surgical targets in corrective surgery for adult CD.

Clinical photographs in the assessment of adult spinal deformity: a comparison to radiographic parameters.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to reliably predict sagittal and coronal spinal alignment with clinical photographs by using markers placed at easily localized anatomical landmarks. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients with adult spinal deformity were enrolled from a single center. Full-length standing radiographs were obtained at the baseline visit. Clinical photographs were taken with reflective markers placed overlying C2, S1, the greater trochanter, and each posterior-superior iliac spine. Sagittal radiographic parameters were C2 pelvic angle (CPA), T1 pelvic angle (TPA), and pelvic tilt. Coronal radiographic parameters were pelvic obliquity and T1 coronal tilt. Linear regressions were performed to evaluate the relationship between radiographic parameters and their photographic "equivalents." The data were reanalyzed after stratifying the cohort into low-body mass index (BMI) (< 30) and high-BMI (≥ 30) groups. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was assessed for clinical measures via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were enrolled (mean age 61 years, mean BMI 27.4 kg/m2, 63% female). All regression models were significant, but sagittal parameters were more closely correlated to photographic parameters than coronal measurements. TPA and CPA had the strongest associations with their photographic equivalents (both r2 = 0.59, p < 0.001). Radiographic and clinical parameters tended to be more strongly correlated in the low-BMI group. Clinical measures of TPA and CPA had high intraobserver reliability (all ICC > 0.99, p < 0.001) and interobserver reliability (both ICC > 0.99, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The photographic measures of spinal deformity developed in this study were highly correlated with their radiographic counterparts and had high inter- and intraobserver reliability. Clinical photography can not only reduce radiation exposure in patients with adult spinal deformity, but also be used to assess deformity when full-spine radiographs are unavailable.

A cost benefit analysis of increasing surgical technology in lumbar spine fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine fusion, such as minimally invasive (MIS) or robotic-assisted spine surgery. However, it is unknown how these advances have impacted the cost of care. PURPOSE: Compare the economic outcomes of lumbar spine fusion between open, MIS, and robot-assisted surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a single center spine surgery database. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three hundred sixty propensity matched patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY). METHODS: Inclusion criteria: surgical patients >18 years undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on procedure type: open, MIS, or robotic. Open patients undergoing poster spinal fusion were considered as the control group. MIS patients included those undergoing transforaminal or lateral lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous screws. Robotic patients were those undergoing robot-assisted fusion. Propensity score matching was performed between all groups for the number of levels fused. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, which reflects both private insurance and Medicare reimbursement claims for ICD-9 codes. For robotic cases, costs were reflective of operational fees and initial purchase cost. Complications and comorbidities and major complications and comorbidities were assessed according to CMS.gov manual definitions. QALYs and cost per QALY were calculated using a 3% discount rate to account for residual decline to life expectancy (78.7 years). Costs per QALY were calculated for both 1 year and life expectancy, assuming no loss of benefit. A 10,000 trial Monte Carlo simulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) assessed our model parameters and costs. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty propensity matched patients (120 open, 120 MIS, 120 robotic) met inclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics for the cohort were: age 58.8±13.5, 50% women, BMI 29.4±6.3, operative time 294.4±119.0, LOS 4.56±3.31 days, estimated blood loss 515.9±670.0 cc, and 2.3±2.2 average levels fused. Rates of post-op complications were significantly higher in robotic cases versus open and MIS (43% vs. 21% and 22% for open and MIS, p<.05). However, revision rates were comparable between all groups (3% open, 3% MIS, 5% robotic, p>.05). After factoring in complications, revisions, and purchasing and operating fees, the costs of robotic cases was significantly higher than both open and MIS surgery ($60,047.01 vs. $42,538.98 open and $41,471.21 MIS). In a subanalysis of 42 patients with baseline (BL) and 1Y EQ5D data, the cost per QALY at 1Y for open, MIS, and robot-assisted cases was $296,624.48, $115,911.69, and $592,734.30. If utility gained was sustained to life expectancy, the cost per QALY was $14,905.75, $5,824.71, $29,785.64 for open, MIS, and robot-assisted cases. Results of the PSA were consistent with MIS surgery having the most incremental cost effectiveness when compared to open and robotic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine surgery, however, there has been limited discussion of the effect these advances have on economic outcomes. When matched for levels fused, robot-assisted surgery patients had significantly higher rates of complications and 30% higher costs of surgery compared to minimally invasive and open spine surgery patients. While 1 year economic outcomes were not optimal for robotic surgery cases, the projected costs per QALYs at life expectancy were well below established acceptable thresholds. The above findings may be reflective of an educational learning curve and emerging surgical technologies undergoing progressive refinement.

Multicenter assessment of surgical outcomes in adult spinal deformity patients with severe global coronal malalignment: determination of target coronal realignment threshold.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of global coronal malalignment (GCM; C7 plumb line-midsacral offset) on adult spinal deformity (ASD) treatment outcomes is unclear. Here, the authors' primary objective was to assess surgical outcomes and complications in patients with severe GCM, with a secondary aim of investigating potential surgical target coronal thresholds for optimal outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter database. Operative patients with severe GCM (≥ 1 SD above the mean) and a minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Demographic, surgical, radiographic, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and complications data were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 691 potentially eligible operative patients (mean GCM 4 ± 3 cm), 80 met the criteria for severe GCM ≥ 7 cm. Of these, 62 (78%; mean age 63.7 ± 10.7 years, 81% women) had a minimum 2-year follow-up (mean follow-up 3.3 ± 1.1 years). The mean ASD-Frailty Index was 3.9 ± 1.5 (frail), 50% had undergone prior fusion, and 81% had concurrent severe sagittal spinopelvic deformity with GCM and C7-S1 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) positively correlated (r = 0.313, p = 0.015). Surgical characteristics included posterior-only (58%) versus anterior-posterior (42%) approach, mean fusion of 13.2 ± 3.8 levels, iliac fixation (90%), 3-column osteotomy (36%), operative duration of 8.3 ± 3.0 hours, and estimated blood loss of 2.3 ± 1.7 L. Final alignment and HRQOL significantly improved (p < 0.01): GCM, 11 to 4 cm; maximum coronal Cobb angle, 43° to 20°; SVA, 13 to 4 cm; pelvic tilt, 29° to 23°; pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch, 31° to 5°; Oswestry Disability Index, 51 to 37; physical component summary of SF-36 (PCS), 29 to 37; 22-Item Scoliosis Research Society Patient Questionnaire (SRS-22r) Total, 2.6 to 3.5; and numeric rating scale score for back and leg pain, 7 to 4 and 5 to 3, respectively. Residual GCM ≥ 3 cm was associated with worse SRS-22r Appearance (p = 0.04) and SRS-22r Satisfaction (p = 0.02). The minimal clinically important difference and/or substantial clinical benefit (MCID/SCB) was met in 43%-83% (highest for SRS-22r Appearance [MCID 83%] and PCS [SCB 53%]). The severity of baseline GCM (≥ 2 SD above the mean) significantly impacted postoperative SRS-22r Satisfaction and MCID/SCB improvement for PCS. No significant partial correlations were demonstrated between GCM or SVA correction and HRQOL improvement. There were 89 total complications (34 minor and 55 major), 45 (73%) patients with ≥ 1 complication (most commonly rod fracture [19%] and proximal junctional kyphosis [PJK; 18%]), and 34 reoperations in 22 (35%) patients (most commonly for rod fracture and PJK). CONCLUSIONS: Study results demonstrated that ASD surgery in patients with substantial GCM was associated with significant radiographic and HRQOL improvement despite high complication rates. MCID improvement was highest for SRS-22r Appearance/Self-Image. A residual GCM ≥ 3 cm was associated with a worse outcome, suggesting a potential coronal realignment target threshold to assist surgical planning.

A cost utility analysis of treating different adult spinal deformity frailty states.

The aim of this study was to investigate the cost utility of treating non-frail versus frail or severely frail adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. 79 surgical ASD patients >18 years with available frailty and ODI data at baseline and 2-years post-surgery (2Y) were included. Utility data was calculated using the ODI converted to the SF-6D. QALYs utilized a 3% discount rate to account for decline to life expectancy (LE). Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database. ICER was compared between non-operative (non-op.) and operative (op.) NF and F/SF patients at 2Y and LE. When compared to non-operative ASD, the ICER was $447,943.96 vs. $313,211.01 for NF and F/SF at 2Y, and $68,311.35 vs. $47,764.61 for NF and F/SF at LE. Frail and severely frail patients had lower cost per QALY compared to not frail patients at 2Y and life expectancy, and had lower ICER values when compared to a non-operative cohort of ASD patients. While these results support operative correction of frail and severely frail patients, it is important to note that these patients are often at worse baseline disability, which is closely related to frailty scores, and have more opportunity to improve postoperatively. Furthermore, there may be a threshold of frailty that is not operable due to the risk of severe complications that is not captured by this analysis. While future research should investigate economic outcomes at extended follow up times, these findings support the cost effectiveness of ASD surgery at all frailty states.

Scoring System to Triage Patients for Spine Surgery in the Setting of Limited Resources: Application to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic and Beyond.

BACKGROUND: As of May 4, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected >3.5 million people and touched every inhabited continent. Accordingly, it has stressed health systems worldwide, leading to the cancellation of elective surgical cases and discussions regarding health care resource rationing. It is expected that rationing of surgical resources will continue even after the pandemic peak and may recur with future pandemics, creating a need for a means of triaging patients for emergent and elective spine surgery. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi technique, a cohort of 16 fellowship-trained spine surgeons from 10 academic medical centers constructed a scoring system for the triage and prioritization of emergent and elective spine surgeries. Three separate rounds of videoconferencing and written correspondence were used to reach a final scoring system. Sixteen test cases were used to optimize the scoring system so that it could categorize cases as requiring emergent, urgent, high-priority elective, or low-priority elective scheduling. RESULTS: The devised scoring system included 8 independent components: neurologic status, underlying spine stability, presentation of a high-risk postoperative complication, patient medical comorbidities, expected hospital course, expected discharge disposition, facility resource limitations, and local disease burden. The resultant calculator was deployed as a freely available Web-based calculator (https://jhuspine3.shinyapps.io/SpineUrgencyCalculator/). CONCLUSIONS: We present the first quantitative urgency scoring system for the triage and prioritizing of spine surgery cases in resource-limited settings. We believe that our scoring system, although not all encompassing, has potential value as a guide for triaging spine surgical cases during the COVID pandemic and post-COVID period.

Prospective multicenter assessment of complication rates associated with adult cervical deformity surgery in 133 patients with minimum 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Although surgical treatment can provide significant improvement of symptomatic adult cervical spine deformity (ACSD), few reports have focused on the associated complications. The objective of this study was to assess complication rates at a minimum 1-year follow-up based on a prospective multicenter series of ACSD patients treated surgically. METHODS: A prospective multicenter database of consecutive operative ACSD patients was reviewed for perioperative (< 30 days), early (30-90 days), and delayed (> 90 days) complications with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Enrollment required at least 1 of the following: cervical kyphosis > 10°, cervical scoliosis > 10°, C2-7 sagittal vertical axis > 4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle > 25°. RESULTS: Of 167 patients, 133 (80%, mean age 62 years, 62% women) had a minimum 1-year follow-up (mean 1.8 years). The most common diagnoses were degenerative (45%) and iatrogenic (17%) kyphosis. Almost 40% of patients were active or past smokers, 17% had osteoporosis, and 84% had at least 1 comorbidity. The mean baseline Neck Disability Index and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores were 47 and 13.6, respectively. Surgical approaches were anterior-only (18%), posterior-only (47%), and combined (35%). A total of 132 complications were reported (54 minor and 78 major), and 74 (56%) patients had at least 1 complication. The most common complications included dysphagia (11%), distal junctional kyphosis (9%), respiratory failure (6%), deep wound infection (6%), new nerve root motor deficit (5%), and new sensory deficit (5%). A total of 4 deaths occurred that were potentially related to surgery, 2 prior to 1-year follow-up (1 cardiopulmonary and 1 due to obstructive sleep apnea and narcotic use) and 2 beyond 1-year follow-up (both cardiopulmonary and associated with revision procedures). Twenty-six reoperations were performed in 23 (17%) patients, with the most common indications of deep wound infection (n = 8), DJK (n = 7), and neurological deficit (n = 6). Although anterior-only procedures had a trend toward lower overall (42%) and major (21%) complications, rates were not significantly different from posterior-only (57% and 33%, respectively) or combined (61% and 37%, respectively) approaches (p = 0.29 and p = 0.38, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This report provides benchmark rates for ACSD surgery complications at a minimum 1-year (mean 1.8 years) follow-up. The marked health and functional impact of ACSD, the frail population it affects, and the high rates of surgical complications necessitate a careful risk-benefit assessment when contemplating surgery. Collectively, these findings provide benchmarks for complication rates and may prove useful for patient counseling and efforts to improve the safety of care.

Assessment of Patient Outcomes and Proximal Junctional Failure Rate of Patients with Adult Spinal Deformity Undergoing Caudal Extension of Previous Spinal Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: This case series examined patients undergoing caudal extension of prior fusion without alteration of the prior upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) to assess patient outcomes and rates of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK)/proximal junctional failure (PJF). METHODS: Patients eligible for 2-year minimum follow-up undergoing caudal extension of prior fusion with unchanged UIVs were identified. These patients were evaluated for PJK/PJF, and patient reported outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: In total, 40 patients were included. Mean follow-up duration was 2.2 ± 0.3 years. Patients in this cohort had poor preoperative sagittal alignment (pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis [PI-LL] 26.7°, T1 pelvic angle [TPA] 29.0°, sagittal vertical axis [SVA] 93.4 mm) and achieved substantial sagittal correction (ΔSVA -62.2 mm, ΔPI-LL -19.8°, ΔTPA -11.1°) after caudal extension surgery. At final follow-up, there was a 0% rate of PJF among patients undergoing caudal extension of previous fusion without creation of a new UIV, but 27.5% of patients experienced PJK. Patients experienced significant improvement in both the Oswestry Disability Index and Scoliosis Research Society-22r total score at 2 years postoperatively (P < 0.05). In total, 7.5% (n = 3) of patients underwent further revision, at an average of 1.1 ± 0.54 years after the surgery with unaltered UIV. All 3 of these patients underwent revision for rod fracture with no revisions for PJK/PJF. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing caudal extension of previous fusions for sagittal alignment correction have high rates of clinical success, low revision surgery rates, and very low rates of PJF. Minimizing repetitive tissue trauma at the UIV may result in decreased PJF risk because the PJF rate in this cohort of patients with unaltered UIV is below historical PJF rates of patients undergoing sagittal balance correction.

Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity: comparison of posterior-only versus anteroposterior approach.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Considerable debate exists regarding the optimal surgical approach for adult spinal deformity (ASD). It remains unclear which approach, posterior-only or combined anterior-posterior (AP), is more cost-effective. Our goal is to determine the 2-year cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for each approach. PURPOSE: To compare the 2-year cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for ASD between the posterior-only approach and combined AP approach. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective economic analysis of a prospective, multicenter database PATIENT SAMPLE: From a prospective, multicenter surgical database of ASD, patients undergoing five or more level fusions through a posterior-only or AP approach were identified and compared. METHODS: QALYs gained were determined using baseline, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative Short Form 6D. Cost was calculated from actual, direct hospital costs including any subsequent readmission or revision. Cost-effectiveness was determined using cost/QALY gained. RESULTS: The AP approach showed significantly higher index cost than the posterior-only approach ($84,329 vs. $64,281). This margin decreased at 2-year follow-up with total costs of $89,824 and $73,904, respectively. QALYs gained at 2 years were similar with 0.21 and 0.17 in the posterior-only and the AP approaches, respectively. The cost/QALY at 2 years after surgery was significantly higher in the AP approach ($525,080) than in the posterior-only approach ($351,086). CONCLUSIONS: We assessed 2-year cost-effectiveness for the surgical treatment through posterior-only and AP approaches. The posterior-only approach is less expensive both for the index surgery and at 2-year follow-up. The QALY gained at 2-years was similar between the two approaches. Thus, posterior-only approach was more cost-effective than the AP approach under our study parameters. However, both approaches were not cost-effective at 2-year follow-up.