Predictors of Superior Recovery Kinetics in Adult Cervical Deformity Correction: An Analysis Using a Novel Area Under the Curve Methodology.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective database. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify demographic, surgical, and radiographic factors that predict superior recovery kinetics following cervical deformity (CD) corrective surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Analyses of CD corrective surgery use area under the curve (AUC) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) metrics throughout recovery. METHODS: Outcome measures were baseline (BL) to 1-year (1Y) health-related quality of life (HRQL) (Neck Disability Index [NDI]). CD criteria were C2-7 Cobb angle >10°, coronal Cobb angle >10°, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) >4 cm, TS-CL >10°, or chin-brow vertical angle >25°. AUC normalization divided BL and postoperative outcomes by BL. Normalized scores (y axis) were plotted against follow-up (x axis). AUC was calculated and divided by cumulative follow-up length to determine overall, time-adjusted recovery (Integrated Health State [IHS]). IHS NDI was stratified by quartile, uppermost 25% being "Superior" Recovery Kinetics (SRK) versus "Normal" Recovery Kinetics (NRK). BL demographic, clinical, and surgical information predicted SRK using generalized linear modeling. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients included (62 ±â€Š10 years, 28 ±â€Š6 kg/m2, 65% females, Charlson Comorbidity Index: 0.95), 6% smokers, 31% smoking history. Surgical approach was: combined (33%), posterior (49%), anterior (18%). Posterior levels fused: 8.7, anterior: 3.6, estimated blood loss: 915.9ccs, operative time: 495 minutes. Ames BL classification: cSVA (53.2% minor deformity, 46.8% moderate), TS-CL (9.8% minor, 4.3% moderate, 85.9% marked), horizontal gaze (27.4% minor, 46.6% moderate, 26% marked). Relative to BL NDI (Mean: 47), normalized NDI decreased at 3 months (0.9 ±â€Š0.5, P = 0.260) and 1Y (0.78 ±â€Š0.41, P < 0.001). NDI IHS correlated with age (P = 0.011), sex (P = 0.042), anterior approach (P = 0.042), posterior approach (P = 0.042). Greater BL pelvic tilt (PT) (SRK: 25.6°, NRK: 17°, P = 0.002), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) (SRK: 8.4°, NRK: -2.8°, P = 0.009), and anterior approach (SRK: 34.8%, NRK: 13.3%; P = 0.020) correlated with SRK. 69.4% met MCID for NDI (<Δ-15) and 63.3% met substantial clinical benefit for NDI (<Δ-10); 100% of SRK met both MCID and substantial clinical benefit. The predictive model for SRK included (AUC = 88.1%): BL visual analog scale (VAS) EuroQol five-dimensional descriptive system (EQ5D) (odds rario [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-0.99), BL swallow sleep score (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.06), BL PT (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03-1.22), BL modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (mJOA) (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.07-2.16), BL T4-T12, BL T10-L2, BL T12-S1, and BL L1-S1. CONCLUSION: Superior recovery kinetics following CD surgery was predicted with high accuracy using BL patient-reported (VAS EQ5D, swallow sleep, mJOA) and radiographic factors (PT, TK, T10-L2, T12-S1, L1-S1). Awareness of these factors can improve decision-making and reduce postoperative neck disability.Level of Evidence: 3.

Does Patient Frailty Status Influence Recovery Following Spinal Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity?: An Analysis of Patients With 3-Year Follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective database. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate postop clinical recovery among adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients between frailty states undergoing primary procedures SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Frailty severity may be an important determinant for impaired recovery after corrective surgery. METHODS: It included ASD patients with health-related quality of life (HRQLs) at baseline (BL), 1 year (1Y), and 3 years (3Y). Patients stratified by frailty by ASD-frailty index scale 0-1(no frailty: <0.3 [NF], mild: 0.3-0.5 [MF], severe: >0.5 [SF]). Demographics, alignment, and SRS-Schwab modifiers were assessed with χ/paired t tests to compare HRQLs: Scoliosis Research Society 22-question Questionnaire (SRS-22), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Back/Leg Pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Area-under-the-curve (AUC) method generated normalized HRQL scores at baseline (BL) and f/u intervals (1Y, 3Y). AUC was calculated for each f/u, and total area was divided by cumulative f/u, generating one number describing recovery (Integrated Health State [IHS]). RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were included (59 years, 80% females). Breakdown of patients by frailty status: 43.6% NF, 40.8% MF, 15.6% SF. SF patients were older (P = 0.003), >body mass index (P = 0.002). MF and SF were significantly (P < 0.001) more malaligned at BL: pelvic tilt (NF: 21.6°; MF: 27.3°; SF: 22.1°), pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (7.4°, 21.2°, 19.7°), sagittal vertical axis (31 mm, 87 mm, 82 mm). By SRS-Schwab, NF were mostly minor (40%), and MF and SF markedly deformed (64%, 57%). Frailty groups exhibited BL to 3Y improvement in SRS-22, ODI, NRS Back/Leg (P < 0.001). After HRQL normalization, SF had improvement in SRS-22 at year 1 and year 3 (P < 0.001), and NRS Back at 1Y. 3Y IHS showed a significant difference in SRS-22 (NF: 1.2 vs. MF: 1.32 vs. SF: 1.69, P < 0.001) and NRS Back Pain (NF: 0.52, MF: 0.66, SF: 0.6, P = 0.025) between frailty groups. SF had more complications (79%). SF/marked deformity had larger invasiveness score (112) compared to MF/moderate deformity (86.2). Controlling for baseline deformity and invasiveness, SF showed more improvement in SRS-22 IHS (NF: 1.21, MF: 1.32, SF: 1.66, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although all frailty groups exhibited improved postop disability/pain scores, SF patients recovered better in SRS-22 and NRS Back. Despite SF patients having more complications and larger invasiveness scores, they had overall better patient-reported outcomes, signifying that with frailty severity, patients have more room for improvement postop compared to BL quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.