Incidence of Congenital Spinal Abnormalities Among Pediatric Patients and Their Association With Scoliosis and Systemic Anomalies.

BACKGROUND: Congenital abnormalities when present, according to VACTERL theory, occur nonrandomly with other congenital anomalies. This study estimates the prevalence of congenital spinal anomalies, and their concurrence with other systemic anomalies. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis on Health care Cost and Utilization Project's Kids Inpatient Database (KID), years 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009 was performed. ICD-9 coding identified congenital anomalies of the spine and other body systems. OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall incidence of congenital spinal abnormalities in pediatric patients, and the concurrence of spinal anomaly diagnoses with other organ system anomalies. Frequencies of congenital spine anomalies were estimated using KID hospital-and-year-adjusted weights. Poisson distribution in contingency tables tabulated concurrence of other congenital anomalies, grouped by body system. RESULTS: Of 12,039,432 patients, rates per 100,000 cases were: 9.1 hemivertebra, 4.3 Klippel-Fiel, 56.3 Chiari malformation, 52.6 tethered cord, 83.4 spina bifida, 1.2 absence of vertebra, and 6.2 diastematomyelia. Diastematomyelia had the highest concurrence of other anomalies: 70.1% of diastematomyelia patients had at least one other congenital anomaly. Next, 63.2% of hemivertebra, and 35.2% of Klippel-Fiel patients had concurrent anomalies. Of the other systems deformities cooccuring, cardiac system had the highest concurrent incidence (6.5% overall). In light of VACTERL's definition of a patient being diagnosed with at least 3 VACTERL anomalies, hemivertebra patients had the highest cooccurrence of ≥3 anomalies (31.3%). With detailed analysis of hemivertebra patients, secundum ASD (14.49%), atresia of large intestine (10.2%), renal agenesis (7.43%) frequently cooccured. CONCLUSIONS: Congenital abnormalities of the spine are associated with serious systemic anomalies that may have delayed presentations. These patients continue to be at a very high, and maybe higher than previously thought, risk for comorbidities that can cause devastating perioperative complications if not detected preoperatively, and full MRI workups should be considered in all patients with spinal abnormalities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Selecting caudal fusion levels: 2 year functional and stiffness outcomes with matched pairs analysis in multilevel fusion to L5 versus S1.

PURPOSE: Controversy persists as to whether to end multilevel thoracolumbar fusions caudally at L5 or S1. Some argue that stopping at L5 may preserve greater function, but there are few data comparing functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness in patients with fusion to L5 versus S1. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients undergoing multilevel thoracolumbar fusions with an L5 caudal endpoint have a better lumbosacral function than patients with an S1 caudal endpoint. METHODS: Patients undergoing successful thoracolumbar fusion of 5 or more levels to L5 or S1, with solid fusion at 2 year follow-up, were examined from a single European center in addition to a multi-center North American database of 237 patients. In total, 40 patients with a distal stopping point of L5 were matched with a subset of 40 patients with a distal endpoint of S1 ± pelvic fixation. The L5 and S1 groups were matched for the final Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA C7-S1), number of fusion levels, and age. Impacts of lumbar stiffness on function as measured by the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (LSDI) were compared using the conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: After matching, there was no significant difference between the S1 and L5 groups for the final ODI (29.22 ± 21.6 for S1 versus 29.21 ± 21.7 for L5; p = 0.98), SVA (29.5 ± 40.3 mm for S1 versus 33.7 ± 37.1 mm for L5; p = 0.97), mean age (61.6 ± 11.0 years for S1 versus 58.3 ± 12.6 years for L5; p = 0.23), and number of fusion levels (9.7 ± 3.3 levels for S1 versus 9.0 ± 3 levels for L5; p = 0.34). The final 2-year postoperative LSDI scores were not significantly different between the S1 group (28.08 ± 21.47) and L5 group (29.21 ± 21.66) (hazard ratio 0.99, 95 % CI 0.97-1.03, p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: The analysis of patients with multilevel thoracolumbar fusions demonstrated that after minimum 2 year follow-up, self-reported functional impacts of lumbar stiffness were not significantly different between the patients with distal endpoints of L5 versus S1. The choice of distal fusion level of L5 does not appear to retain sufficient spinal flexibility to substantially affect postoperative function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Postoperative Discharge to Acute Rehabilitation or Skilled Nursing Facility Compared With Home Does Not Reduce Hospital Readmissions, Return to Surgery, or Improve Outcomes Following Adult Spine Deformity Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity (ASD) study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate 30-day readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for matched ASD patients receiving nonhome discharge (NON), including acute rehabilitation (REHAB), and skilled nursing facility (SNF), or home (HOME) discharge following ASD surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Postoperative disposition following ASD surgery frequently involves nonhome discharge. Little data exists for longer term outcomes for ASD patients receiving nonhome discharge versus patients discharged to home. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgically treated ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study were assessed for NON or HOME disposition following hospital discharge. NON was further divided into REHAB or SNF. Propensity score matching was used to match for patient age, frailty, spine deformity, levels fused, and osteotomies performed at surgery. Thirty-day hospital readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and 1-year and minimum 2-year postoperative PROs were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 241 of 374 patients were eligible for the study. NON patients were identified and matched to HOME patients. Following matching, 158 patients remained for evaluation; NON and HOME had similar preoperative age, frailty, spine deformity magnitude, surgery performed, and duration of hospital stay ( P >0.05). Thirty-day readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, and postoperative complications were similar for NON versus HOME and similar for REHAB (N=64) versus SNF (N=42) versus HOME ( P >0.05). At 1-year and minimum 2-year follow-up, HOME demonstrated similar to better PRO scores including Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 36v2 questionnaire Mental Component Score and Physical Component Score, and Scoliosis Research Society scores versus NON, REHAB, and SNF ( P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Acute needs must be considered following ASD surgery, however, matched analysis comparing 30-day hospital readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and PROs demonstrated minimal benefit for NON, REHAB, or SNF versus HOME at 1- and 2-year follow-up, questioning the risk and cost/benefits of routine use of nonhome discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-prognostic.

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.

Patient-specific Cervical Deformity Corrections With Consideration of Associated Risk: Establishment of Risk Benefit Thresholds for Invasiveness Based on Deformity and Frailty Severity.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a retrospective cohort study. BACKGROUND: Little is known of the intersection between surgical invasiveness, cervical deformity (CD) severity, and frailty. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of CD surgery by invasiveness, frailty status, and baseline magnitude of deformity. METHODS: This study included CD patients with 1-year follow-up. Patients stratified in high deformity if severe in the following criteria: T1 slope minus cervical lordosis, McGregor's slope, C2-C7, C2-T3, and C2 slope. Frailty scores categorized patients into not frail and frail. Patients are categorized by frailty and deformity (not frail/low deformity; not frail/high deformity; frail/low deformity; frail/high deformity). Logistic regression assessed increasing invasiveness and outcomes [distal junctional failure (DJF), reoperation]. Within frailty/deformity groups, decision tree analysis assessed thresholds for an invasiveness cutoff above which experiencing a reoperation, DJF or not achieving Good Clinical Outcome was more likely. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients were included. Frailty/deformity groups: 27% not frail/low deformity, 27% not frail/high deformity, 23.5% frail/low deformity, and 22.5% frail/high deformity. Logistic regression analysis found increasing invasiveness and occurrence of DJF [odds ratio (OR): 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05, P =0.002], and invasiveness increased with deformity severity ( P <0.05). Not frail/low deformity patients more often met Optimal Outcome with an invasiveness index <63 (OR: 27.2, 95% CI: 2.7-272.8, P =0.005). An invasiveness index <54 for the frail/low deformity group led to a higher likelihood of meeting the Optimal Outcome (OR: 9.6, 95% CI: 1.5-62.2, P =0.018). For the frail/high deformity group, patients with a score <63 had a higher likelihood of achieving Optimal Outcome (OR: 4.8, 95% CI: 1.1-25.8, P =0.033). There was no significant cutoff of invasiveness for the not frail/high deformity group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study correlated increased invasiveness in CD surgery to the risk of DJF, reoperation, and poor clinical success. The thresholds derived for deformity severity and frailty may enable surgeons to individualize the invasiveness of their procedures during surgical planning to account for the heightened risk of adverse events and minimize unfavorable outcomes.

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.

Efficacy of Varying Surgical Approaches on Achieving Optimal Alignment in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Roussouly, SRS-Schwab, and Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) classifications define alignment by spinal shape and deformity severity. The efficacy of different surgical approaches and techniques to successfully achieve these goals is not well understood. PURPOSE: Identify the impact of surgical approach and/or technique on meeting complex realignment goals in adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included patients with ASD fused to pelvis with 2-year data. Patients were categorized by: (1) Roussouly: matching current and theoretical spinal shapes, (2) improving in SRS-Schwab modifiers (0, +, ++), and (3) improving GAP proportionality by 2 years. Analysis of covariance and multivariable logistic regression analyses controlling for age, levels fused, baseline deformity, and 3-column osteotomy usage compared the effect of different surgical approaches, interbody, and osteotomy use on meeting realignment goals. RESULTS: A total of 693 patients with ASD were included. By surgical approach, 65.7% were posterior-only and 34.3% underwent anterior-posterior approach with 76% receiving an osteotomy (21.8% 3-column osteotomy). By 2 years, 34% matched Roussouly, 58% improved in GAP, 45% in SRS-Schwab pelvic tilt (PT), 62% sagittal vertical axis, and 70% pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis. Combined approaches were most effective for improvement in PT [odds ratio (OR): 1.7 (1.1-2.5)] and GAP [OR: 2.2 (1.5-3.2)]. Specifically, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) below L3 demonstrated higher rates of improvement versus TLIFs in Roussouly [OR: 1.7 (1.1-2.5)] and GAP [OR: 1.9 (1.3-2.7)]. Patients undergoing pedicle subtraction osteotomy at L3 or L4 were more likely to improve in PT [OR: 2.0 (1.0-5.2)] and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis [OR: 3.8 (1.4-9.8)]. Clinically, patients undergoing the combined approach demonstrated higher rates of meeting SCB in Oswestry Disability Index by 2 years while minimizing rates of proximal junctional failure, most often with an ALIF at L5-S1 [Oswestry Disability Index-SCB: OR: 1.4 (1.1-2.0); proximal junctional failure: OR: 0.4 (0.2-0.8)]. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing ASD realignment, optimal lumbar shape and proportion can be achieved more often with a combined approach. Although TLIFs, incorporating a 3-column osteotomy, at L3 and L4 can restore lordosis and normalize pelvic compensation, ALIFs at L5-S1 were most likely to achieve complex realignment goals with an added clinical benefit and mitigation of junctional failure.

The Case for Operative Efficiency in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Impact of Operative Time on Complications, Length of Stay, Alignment, Fusion Rates, and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of operative room (OR) time in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery on patient outcomes. BACKGROUND: It is currently unknown if OR time in ASD patients matched for deformity severity and surgical invasiveness is associated with patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ASD patients with baseline and two-year postoperative radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) data, undergoing a posterior-only approach for long fusion (>L1-Ilium) were included. Patients were grouped into short OR time (<40th percentile: <359 min) and long OR time (>60th percentile: >421 min). Groups were matched by age, baseline deformity severity, and surgical invasiveness. Demographics, radiographic, PROM data, fusion rate, and complications were compared between groups at baseline and two years follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 270 patients were included for analysis: the mean OR time was 286 minutes in the short OR group versus 510 minutes in the long OR group ( P <0.001). Age, gender, percent of revision cases, surgical invasiveness, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis, sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic tilt were comparable between groups ( P >0.05). Short OR had a slightly lower body mass index than the short OR group ( P <0.001) and decompression was more prevalent in the long OR time ( P =0.042). Patients in the long group had greater hospital length of stay ( P =0.02); blood loss ( P <0.001); proportion requiring intensive care unit ( P =0.003); higher minor complication rate ( P =0.001); with no significant differences for major complications or revision procedures ( P >0.5). Both groups had comparable radiographic fusion rates ( P =0.152) and achieved improvement in sagittal alignment measures, Oswestry disability index, and Short Form-36 ( P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Shorter OR time for ASD correction is associated with a lower minor complication rate, a lower estimated blood loss, fewer intensive care unit admissions, and a shorter hospital length of stay without sacrificing alignment correction or PROMs. Maximizing operative efficiency by minimizing OR time in ASD surgery has the potential to benefit patients, surgeons, and hospital systems.

Lumbar Lordosis Redistribution and Segmental Correction in Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD): Does it Matter?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of correcting to normative segmental lordosis values on post-operative outcomes. BACKGROUND: Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remains unclear. METHODS: Patients were grouped based on offset to normative segmental lordosis values, extracted from recent publications. Matched patients were within 10% of the cohort's mean offset, less than or over 10% were under- and over-corrected. Surgical technique, PROMs, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and 2-year. RESULTS: 510 patients with an average age of 64.6, mean CCI 2.08, and average follow-up of 25 months. L4-5 was least likely to be matched (19.1%), while L4-S1 was the most likely (24.3%). More patients were overcorrected at proximal levels (T10-L2; Undercorrected, U: 32.2% vs. Matched, M: 21.7% vs. Overcorrected, O: 46.1%) and undercorrected at distal levels (L4-S1: U: 39.0% vs. M: 24.3% vs. O: 36.8%). Postoperative ODI was comparable across correction groups at all spinal levels except at L4-S1 and T10-L2/L4-S1, where overcorrected patients and matched were better than undercorrected (U: 32.1 vs. M: 25.4 vs. O: 26.5, P=0.005; U: 36.2 vs. M: 24.2 vs. O: 26.8, P=0.001; respectively). Patients overcorrected at T10-L2 experienced higher rates of proximal junctional failure (PJF) (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P<0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) (U: -9.2±9.4° vs. M: -9.6±9.1° vs. O: -12.2±10.0°, P<0.001), whereas undercorrection at these levels led to higher rates of revision for implant failure (U: 14.2% vs. M: 7.3% vs. O: 6.4%, P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing fusion for adult spinal deformity suffer higher rates of PJF with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

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.

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.

Analysis of tranexamic acid usage in adult spinal deformity patients with relative contraindications: does it increase the risk of complications?

OBJECTIVE: Complex spinal deformity surgeries may involve significant blood loss. The use of antifibrinolytic agents such as tranexamic acid (TXA) has been proven to reduce perioperative blood loss. However, for patients with a history of thromboembolic events, there is concern of increased risk when TXA is used during these surgeries. This study aimed to assess whether TXA use in patients undergoing complex spinal deformity correction surgeries increases the risk of thromboembolic complications based on preexisting thromboembolic risk factors. METHODS: Data were analyzed for adult patients who received TXA during surgical correction for spinal deformity at 21 North American centers between August 2018 and October 2022. Patients with preexisting thromboembolic events and other risk factors (history of deep venous thrombosis [DVT], pulmonary embolism [PE], myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, peripheral vascular disease, or cancer) were identified. Thromboembolic complication rates were assessed during the postoperative 90 days. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess thromboembolic outcomes in high-risk and low-risk patients who received intravenous TXA. RESULTS: Among 411 consecutive patients who underwent complex spinal deformity surgery and received TXA intraoperatively, 130 (31.6%) were considered high-risk patients. There was no significant difference in thromboembolic complications between patients with and those without preexisting thromboembolic risk factors in univariate analysis (high-risk group vs low-risk group: 8.5% vs 2.8%, p = 0.45). Specifically, there were no significant differences between groups regarding the 90-day postoperative rates of DVT (high-risk group vs low-risk group: 1.5% vs 1.4%, p = 0.98), PE (2.3% vs 1.8%, p = 0.71), acute MI (1.5% vs 0%, p = 0.19), or stroke (0.8% vs 1.1%, p > 0.99). On multivariate analysis, high-risk status was not a significant independent predictor for any of the thromboembolic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of intravenous TXA during the correction procedure did not change rates of thromboembolic events, acute MI, or stroke in this cohort of adult spinal deformity surgery patients.

Factors Associated with the Maintenance of Cost-Effectiveness at 5 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 5-year (5 Y) follow-up. Published methods were used to determine costs based on CMS.gov definitions and were based on the average DRG reimbursement rates. 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 with 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 5 Y. The mean cost associated with surgery was $91,095±$47,003, with a utility gain of 0.091±0.086 at 1Y, QALY gained at 2 Y of 0.171±0.183, and at 5 Y of 0.42±0.43. The cost per QALY at 2 Y was $414,885, which decreased to $142,058 at 5 Y.With the threshold of $150,000 for CE, 19% met CE at 2 Y and 56% at 5 Y. 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 5 Y (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 2 Y, while comorbidity burden and medical complications were at 5 Y.

Persistent Lower Extremity Compensation for Sagittal Imbalance After Surgical Correction of Complex Adult Spinal Deformity: A Radiographic Analysis of Early Impact.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Achieving spinopelvic realignment during adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery does not always produce ideal outcomes. Little is known whether compensation in lower extremities (LEs) plays a role in this disassociation. The objective is to analyze lower extremity compensation after complex ASD surgery, its effect on outcomes, and whether correction can alleviate these mechanisms. METHODS: We included patients with complex ASD with 6-week data. LE parameters were as follows: sacrofemoral angle, knee flexion angle, and ankle flexion angle. Each parameter was ranked, and upper tertile was deemed compensation. Patients compensating and not compensating postoperatively were propensity score matched for body mass index, frailty, and T1 pelvic angle. Linear regression assessed correlation between LE parameters and baseline deformity, demographics, and surgical details. Multivariate analysis controlling for baseline deformity and history of total knee/hip arthroplasty evaluated outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred and ten patients (age: 61.3 ± 14.1 years, body mass index: 27.4 ± 5.8 kg/m2, Charlson Comorbidity Index: 1.1 ± 1.6, 72% female, 22% previous total joint arthroplasty, 24% osteoporosis, levels fused: 13.1 ± 3.8) were included. At baseline, 59% were compensating in LE: 32% at hips, 39% knees, and 36% ankles. After correction, 61% were compensating at least one joint. Patients undercorrected postoperatively were less likely to relieve LE compensation (odds ratio: 0.2, P = .037). Patients compensating in LE were more often undercorrected in age-adjusted pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, and T1 pelvic angle and disproportioned in Global Alignment and Proportion (P < .05). Patients matched in sagittal age-adjusted score at 6 weeks but compensating in LE were more likely to develop proximal junctional kyphosis (odds ratio: 4.1, P = .009) and proximal junctional failure (8% vs 0%, P = .035) than those sagittal age-adjusted score-matched and not compensating in LE. CONCLUSION: Perioperative lower extremity compensation was a product of undercorrecting complex ASD. Even in age-adjusted realignment, compensation was associated with global undercorrection and junctional failure. Consideration of lower extremities during planning is vital to avoid adverse outcomes in perioperative course after complex ASD surgery.

Predictors of pelvic tilt normalization: a multicenter study on the impact of regional and lower-extremity compensation on pelvic alignment after complex adult spinal deformity surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the degree of regional decompensation to pelvic tilt (PT) normalization after complex adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. METHODS: Operative ASD patients with 1 year of PT measurements were included. Patients with normalized PT at baseline were excluded. Predicted PT was compared to actual PT, tested for change from baseline, and then compared against age-adjusted, Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab, and global alignment and proportion (GAP) scores. Lower-extremity (LE) parameters included the cranial-hip-sacrum angle, cranial-knee-sacrum angle, and cranial-ankle-sacrum angle. LE compensation was set as the 1-year upper tertile compared with intraoperative baseline. Univariate analyses were used to compare normalized and nonnormalized data against alignment outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to develop a model consisting of significant predictors for normalization related to regional compensation. RESULTS: In total, 156 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean ± SD age 64.6 ± 9.1 years, BMI 27.9 ± 5.6 kg/m2, Charlson Comorbidity Index 1.9 ± 1.6). Patients with normalized PT were more likely to have overcorrected pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis and sagittal vertical axis at 6 weeks (p < 0.05). GAP score at 6 weeks was greater for patients with nonnormalized PT (0.6 vs 1.3, p = 0.08). At baseline, 58.5% of patients had compensation in the thoracic and cervical regions. Postoperatively, compensation was maintained by 42% with no change after matching in age-adjusted or GAP score. The patients with nonnormalized PT had increased rates of thoracic and cervical compensation (p < 0.05). Compensation in thoracic kyphosis differed between patients with normalized PT at 6 weeks and those with normalized PT at 1 year (69% vs 35%, p < 0.05). Those who compensated had increased rates of implant complications by 1 year (OR [95% CI] 2.08 [1.32-6.56], p < 0.05). Cervical compensation was maintained at 6 weeks and 1 year (56% vs 43%, p = 0.12), with no difference in implant complications (OR 1.31 [95% CI -2.34 to 1.03], p = 0.09). For the lower extremities at baseline, 61% were compensating. Matching age-adjusted alignment did not eliminate compensation at any joint (all p > 0.05). Patients with nonnormalized PT had higher rates of LE compensation across joints (all p < 0.01). Overall, patients with normalized PT at 1 year had the greatest odds of resolving LE compensation (OR 9.6, p < 0.001). Patients with normalized PT at 1 year had lower rates of implant failure (8.9% vs 19.5%, p < 0.05), rod breakage (1.3% vs 13.8%, p < 0.05), and pseudarthrosis (0% vs 4.6%, p < 0.05) compared with patients with nonnormalized PT. The complication rate was significantly lower for patients with normalized PT at 1 year (56.7% vs 66.1%, p = 0.02), despite comparable health-related quality of life scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PT normalization had greater rates of resolution in thoracic and LE compensation, leading to lower rates of complications by 1 year. Thus, consideration of both the lower extremities and thoracic regions in surgical planning is vital to preventing adverse outcomes and maintaining pelvic alignment.

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.

Optimizing the Definition of Proximal Junctional Kyphosis: A Sensitivity Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Diagnostic binary threshold analysis. OBJECTIVE: (1) Perform a sensitivity analysis demonstrating the test performance metrics for any combination of proximal junctional angle (PJA) magnitude and change; (2) Propose a new proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) criteria. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous definitions of PJK have been arbitrarily selected and then tested through retrospective case series, often showing little correlation with clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgically treated adult spinal deformity patients (≥4 levels fused) enrolled into a prospective, multicenter database were evaluated at a minimum 2-year follow-up for proximal junctional failure (PJF). Using PJF as the outcome of interest, test performance metrics including sensitivity, positive predictive value, and F1 metrics (harmonic mean of precision and recall) were calculated for all combinations of PJA magnitude and change using different combinations of perijunctional vertebrae. The combination with the highest F1 score was selected as the new PJK criteria. Performance metrics of previous PJK definitions and the new PJK definition were compared. RESULTS: Of the total, 669 patients were reviewed. PJF rate was 10%. Overall, the highest F1 scores were achieved when the upper instrumented vertebrae -1 (UIV-1)/UIV+2 angle was measured. For lower thoracic cases, out of all the PJA and magnitude/change combinations tested, a UIV-1/UIV+2 magnitude of -28° and a change of -20° was associated with the highest F1 score. For upper thoracic cases, a UIV-1/UIV+2 magnitude of -30° and a change of -24° were associated with the highest F1 score. Using PJF as the outcome, patients meeting this new criterion (11.5%) at 6 weeks had the lowest survival rate (74.7%) at 2 years postoperative, compared with Glattes (84.4%) and Bridwell (77.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Out of all possible PJA magnitude and change combinations, without stratifying by upper thoracic versus lower thoracic fusions, a magnitude of ≤-28° and a change of ≤-22° provide the best test performance metrics for predicting PJF.

Diagnosis-Related Group-Based Payments for Adult Spine Deformity Surgery Significantly Vary across Centers: Results from a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the variation in total episode-of-care (EOC) payment and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain for complex adult spine deformity surgeries in the United States, adjusting for case type and surgeon preferences. METHODS: Patients aged >18 years with adult spine deformity with Medicare Severity-Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) 453-460 and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up from index surgery were included. Index and total payments were calculated using Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System. All costs were adjusted for inflation to 2020 U.S. dollar values. QALYs gained were calculated using baseline, 1-year, and 2-year Short-Form 6D scores. Mixed-effect models were used to estimate the proportion of variation in total EOC payment and QALY gain. RESULTS: A total of 330/543 patients from 6 sites were included. Mean age was 62.4 ± 11.9 years, 79% were women, and 92% were white. The mean index and total EOC payment were $77,302 and $93,182, respectively. Patients gained on average 0.15 QALY (P < 0.0001) 2 years after surgery. In unadjusted analysis, 39% of the variation in total EOC payment across the 6 centers was attributable to relative weight of DRG and base rate. Adjusting for patient and procedural factors increased the proportion of variation in total EOC payments across the centers to 56%. Less than 2% of the variation in QALY gain was observed across the 6 centers. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare-based payments for complex spine deformity fusions are primarily driven by relative weight of the DRG and the hospital's base rate. Patient and procedural factors are unaccounted for in the DRG-based payments made to the providers.

Would you do it again? Discrepancies between patient and surgeon perceptions following adult spine deformity surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery can improve patient pain and physical function but is associated with high complication rates and long postoperative recovery. Accordingly, if given a choice, patients may indicate they would not undergo ASD surgery again. PURPOSE: Evaluate surgically treated ASD patients to assess if given the option (1) would surgically treated ASD patients choose to undergo the same ASD surgery again, (2) would the treating surgeon perform the same ASD surgery again and if not why, (3) evaluate for consensus and/or discrepancies between patient and surgeon opinions for willingness to perform/receive the same surgery, and (4) evaluate for associations with willingness to undergo or not undergo the same surgery again and patient demographics, patient reported outcomes, and postoperative complications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective ASD study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Surgically treated ASD patients enrolled into a multicenter prospective study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire (SRS-22r), Short Form-36v2 questionnaire (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric pain rating for back pain (NRS back) and leg pain (NRS leg), minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for SRS-22r domains and ODI, intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgeon and patient satisfaction with surgery. METHODS: Surgically treated ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study were asked at minimum 2-year postoperative, if, based upon their hospital and surgical experiences and surgical recovery experiences, would the patient undergo the same surgery again. Treating surgeons were then matched to their corresponding patients, blinded to the patients' preoperative and postoperative patient reported outcome measures, and interviewed and asked if (1) the surgeon believed that the corresponding patient would undergo the surgery again, (2) if the surgeon believed the corresponding patient was improved by the surgery and (3) if the surgeon would perform the same surgery on the corresponding patient again, and if not why. ASD patients were divided into those indicating they would (YES), would not (NO) or were unsure (UNSURE) if they would have same surgery again. Agreement between patient and surgeon willingness to receive/perform the same surgery was assessed and correlations between patient willingness for same surgery, postoperative complications, spine deformity correction, patient reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: A total of 580 of 961 ASD patients eligible for study were evaluated. YES (n=472) had similar surgical procedures performed, similar duration of hospital and ICU stay, similar spine deformity correction and similar postoperative spinal alignment as NO (n=29; p>.05). UNSURE (n=79) had greater preoperative depression and opioid use rates, UNSURE and NO had more postoperative complications requiring surgery, and UNSURE and NO had fewer percentages of patients reaching postoperative MCID for SRS-22r domains and MCID for ODI than YES (p<.05). Comparison of patient willingness to receive the same surgery versus surgeon perceptions on patient's willingness to receive the same surgery demonstrated surgeons accurately identified YES (91.1%) but poorly identified NO (13.8%; p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: If given a choice, 18.6% of surgically treated ASD patients indicated they were unsure or would not undergo the surgery again. ASD patients indicating they were unsure or would not undergo ASD surgery again had greater preoperative depression, greater preoperative opioid use, worse postoperative PROs, fewer patients reaching MCID, more complications requiring surgery, and greater postoperative opioid use. Additionally, patients that indicated they would not have the same surgery again were poorly identified by their treating surgeons compared to patients indicating they would be willing to receive the same surgery again. More research is needed to understand patient expectations and improve patient experiences following ASD surgery.