Recovery Kinetics: Comparison of Patients Undergoing Primary or Revision Procedures for Adult Cervical Deformity Using a Novel Area Under the Curve Methodology.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available to objectively define what constitutes a "good" versus a "bad" recovery for operative cervical deformity (CD) patients. Furthermore, the recovery patterns of primary versus revision procedures for CD is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To define and compare the recovery profiles of CD patients undergoing primary or revision procedures, utilizing a novel area-under-the-curve normalization methodology. METHODS: CD patients undergoing primary or revision surgery with baseline to 1-yr health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores were included. Clinical symptoms and HRQL were compared among groups (primary/revision). Normalized HRQL scores at baseline and follow-up intervals (3M, 6M, 1Y) were generated. Normalized HRQLs were plotted and area under the curve was calculated, generating one number describing overall recovery (Integrated Health State). Subanalysis identified recovery patterns through 2-yr follow-up. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were included (45 primary, 38 revision). Age (61.3 vs 61.9), gender (F: 66.7% vs 63.2%), body mass index (27.7 vs 29.3), Charlson Comorbidity Index, frailty, and osteoporosis (20% vs 13.2%) were similar between groups (P > .05). Primary patients were more preoperatively neurologically symptomatic (55.6% vs 31.6%), less sagittally malaligned (cervical sagittal vertical axis [cSVA]: 32.6 vs 46.6; T1 slope: 28.8 vs 36.8), underwent more anterior-only approaches (28.9% vs 7.9%), and less posterior-only approaches (37.8% vs 60.5%), all P < .05. Combined approaches, decompressions, osteotomies, and construct length were similar between groups (P > .05). Revisions had longer op-times (438.0 vs 734.4 min, P = .008). Following surgery, complication rate was similar between groups (66.6% vs 65.8%, P = .569). Revision patients remained more malaligned (cSVA, TS-CL; P < .05) than primary patients until 1-yr follow-up (P > .05). Normalized HRQLs determined primary patients to exhibit less neck pain (numeric rating scale [NRS]) and myelopathy (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association) symptoms through 1-yr follow-up compared to revision patients (P < .05). These differences subsided when following patients through 2 yr (P > .05). Despite similar 2-yr HRQL outcomes, revision patients exhibited worse neck pain (NRS) Integrated Health State recovery (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Despite both primary and revision patients exhibiting similar HRQL outcomes at final follow-up, revision patients were in a greater state of postoperative neck pain for a greater amount of time.

Preliminary results of anterior lumbar interbody fusion, anterior column realignment for the treatment of sagittal malalignment.

OBJECTIVE Sagittal malalignment decreases patients' quality of life and may require surgical correction to achieve realignment goals. High-risk posterior-based osteotomy techniques are the current standard treatment for addressing sagittal malalignment. More recently, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, anterior column realignment (ALIF ACR) has been introduced as an alternative for correction of sagittal deformity. The objective of this paper was to report clinical and radiographic results for patients treated using the ALIF-ACR technique. METHODS A retrospective study of 39 patients treated with ALIF ACR was performed. Patient demographics, operative details, radiographic parameters, neurological assessments, outcome measures, and preoperative, postoperative, and mean 1-year follow-up complications were studied. RESULTS The patient population comprised 39 patients (27 females and 12 males) with a mean follow-up of 13.3 ± 4.7 months, mean age of 66.1 ± 11.6 years, and mean body mass index of 27.3 ± 6.2 kg/m2. The mean number of ALIF levels treated was 1.5 ± 0.5. Thirty-three (84.6%) of 39 patients underwent posterior spinal fixation and 33 (84.6%) of 39 underwent posterior column osteotomy, of which 20 (60.6%) of 33 procedures were performed at the level of the ALIF ACR. Pelvic tilt, sacral slope, and pelvic incidence were not statistically significantly different between the preoperative and postoperative periods and between the preoperative and 1-year follow-up periods (except for PT between the preoperative and 1-year follow-up, p = 0.018). Sagittal vertical axis, T-1 spinopelvic inclination, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch, intradiscal angle, and motion segment angle all improved from the preoperative to postoperative period and the preoperative to 1-year follow-up (p < 0.05). The changes in motion segment angle and intradiscal angle achieved in the ALIF-ACR group without osteotomy compared with the ALIF-ACR group with osteotomy at the level of ACR were not statistically significant. Total visual analog score, Oswestry Disability Index, and Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores all improved from preoperative to postoperative and preoperative to 1-year follow-up. Fourteen patients (35.9%) experienced 26 complications (15 major and 11 minor). Eleven patients required reoperation. The most common complication was proximal junctional kyphosis (6/26 complications, 23%) followed by vertebral body/endplate fracture (3/26, 12%). CONCLUSIONS This study showed satisfactory radiographic and clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up. Proximal junctional kyphosis was the most common complication followed by fracture, complications that are commonly associated with sagittal realignment surgery and may not be mitigated by the anterior approach.