Predictability in Achieving Target Intervertebral Lordosis Using Personalized Interbody Implants.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar lordosis distribution has become a pivotal factor in re-establishing the foundational alignment of the lumbar spine. This can directly influence overall sagittal alignment, leading to improved long-term outcomes for patients. Despite the wide availability of hyperlordotic stock cages intended to achieve optimal postoperative alignment, there is a lack of correlation between the lordotic shape of a cage and the resultant intervertebral alignment. Recently, personalized spine surgery has witnessed significant advancements, including 3D-printed personalized interbody implants, which are customized to the surgeon's treatment and alignment goals. This study evaluates the reliability of 3D-printed patient-specific interbody implants to achieve the planned postoperative intervertebral alignment. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 217 patients with spinal deformity or degenerative conditions. Patients were included if they received 3D-printed personalized interbody implants. The desired intervertebral lordosis (IVL) angle was prescribed into the device design for each personalized interbody (IVL goal). Standing postoperative radiographs were measured, and the IVL offset was calculated as IVL achieved minus IVL goal. RESULTS: In this patient population, 365 personalized interbodies were implanted, including 145 anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs), 99 lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs), and 121 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions. Among the 365 treated levels, IVL offset was 1.1° ± 4.4° (mean ± SD). IVL was achieved within 5° of the plan in 299 levels (81.9%). IVL offset depended on the approach of the lumbar interbody fusion and was achieved within 5° for 85.9% of LLIF, 82.6% of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions and 78.6% of ALIFs. Ten levels (2.7%) missed the planned IVL by >10°. ALIF and LLIF levels in which the plan was missed by more than 5° tended to be overcorrected. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of 3D-printed personalized interbody implants to achieve planned sagittal intervertebral alignment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Personalized interbody implants can consistently achieve IVL goals and potentially impact foundational lumbar alignment.

Radiographic Outcomes and Complications of Anterior Column Realignment (ACR): A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Anterior Column Realignment (ACR) was introduced to serve as a powerful segmental kyphosis correction technique in minimally invasive Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) surgery. Releasing the Anterior Longitudinal Ligament (ALL) and annulus allows opening of the disc space to accommodate hyperlordotic cages. The overall safety and efficacy of ACR has been difficult to determine due to the heterogenicity of surgical techniques, complications reporting, and a paucity of published studies leading to preliminary and controversial conclusions. PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and complications rates associated with ACR. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review METHODS: : We queried the MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and EMBASE databases for all literature related to ACR procedure with a publication cutoff start date of January 1, 2010. This systematic review was performed utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Non-English, nonhuman, case reports and review article publications were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 298 studies were identified. Following screening of title, abstract, and full text, 16 articles were included in the review with a total 756 patients. All the studies included in this systematic review were retrospective case series with a level of evidence IV. Ten studies reported ACR-related complications, with an average rate of 27.2%. The rate of reoperations was reported in 5 studies, for which the average reoperation rate was 9.5%. Cage Subsidence (CS) occurred in 13.7%, Proximal Junctional Kyphosis (PJK) in 12.2%, neurologic injury in 7.3%, and Proximal Junctional Failure (PJF) in 2.7%. The vascular injury rate was 0.5%, with bowel perforation and ureteric injury occurring in 0.2%. For the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and radiological outcome analysis we excluded studies with less than 12 months follow up leaving 8 studies eligible for the analysis. There was a significant improvement of both local Motion Segment Angle (MSA) and Intra Discal Angle (IDA) with a mean segmental correction of 20° lordosis in the 3 studies that reported these parameters. CONCLUSION: Based on the limited data available in this systematic review, the ACR technique has significant ability to restore and, when needed, correct the local segmental intervertebral angulation and thereby influencing the overall regional and global sagittal alignment. The associated risk of vascular, bowel, and nerve injury did not seem to be significantly higher in this review than other alternative lumbar interbody fusion techniques. Additional higher quality studies, including a consensus for reporting complications is required to reach definitive conclusions regarding its possible associated risks.

Can titanium surface technology reduce cost for biologics in anterior lumbar interbody fusion?

OBJECTIVE: Advances in surface architecture and technology have made interbody fusion devices more bioactive, with the hope of facilitating the fusion process more successfully. The advent of these increasingly bioactive implants may reduce reliance on more expensive biologics that have previously been used to achieve high fusion rates. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data (August 2018-December 2019) was conducted of consecutively performed anterior lumbar interbody fusions in which an acid-etched, nanosurface-modulated, titanium interbody device packed only with corticocancellous allograft chips and local blood was used. Minimum follow-up was 1 year, and inclusion required available imaging and outcome metrics preoperatively and at 1 year. Fusion and subsidence were assessed via CT scans and/or dynamic radiographs. Health-related quality-of-life measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], visual analog scale [VAS] back/leg) were collected pre- and postoperatively. RESULTS: In total, 55 patients met inclusion criteria (1 year of follow-up, available imaging, and outcome metrics). A total of 69 lumbar levels were treated in these 55 patients. The mean age was 67 ± 12.1 years, with 47% female patients. Roughly one-third (35%) had previous spine surgery, and approximately one-tenth (9.1%) had prior spinal fusion. A total of 20.6% were treated at multiple levels (mean levels per patient 1.2, minimum 1, maximum 3). The mean preoperative patient-reported outcomes were as follows: ODI 39.71 ± 18.15, VAS back 6.49 ± 2.19, and VAS leg 5.41 ± 2.71. One year after surgery, the mean improvements in patient-reported outcomes (vs preoperative scores) were as follows: ODI -22.9 ± 13.08 (p < 0.001), VAS back -3.75 ± 2.03 (p < 0.001), VAS leg -3.73 ± 2.32 (p < 0.001). All levels achieved fusion at 1 year postoperatively based on CT scans (65/69 levels) or dynamic radiographs (4/69 levels, change in score < 5% on flexion-extension radiographs). Four of the 65 levels were assigned to the grade 3 category according to a CT-based grading system, meaning cranial and caudal endplate bone apposition to the implant on both surfaces with no clear intervertebral bone connection through or around the implant. Sixty-one of 65 were found to have contiguous intervertebral bone bridging and thus were assigned to grade 1 (n = 54) or grade 2 (n = 7). Low-grade graft subsidence (Marchi grade 0 or I) occurred in 9 levels (13.0%) and high-grade subsidence (Marchi grade II or III) in 4 levels (5.8%). No patients required reoperation at the level of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and no radiographic or clinical evidence of pedicle screw loosening or failure was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of advances in materials science and surface technology as demonstrated with a nanotechnology titanium cage resulted in the ability to obtain lumbar interbody fusion with allograft chips and local blood alone. Achieving high fusion rates with low-cost biologics/allograft provides for an attractive pathway toward reducing the cost of reconstructive spine care, and a potential incremental benefit for healthcare economics.

Impact of Prior Cervical Fusion on Patients Undergoing Thoracolumbar Deformity Correction.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of prior cervical constructs on upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) selection and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing thoracolumbar deformity correction. BACKGROUND: Surgical planning for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients involves consideration of spinal alignment and existing fusion constructs. METHODS: ASD patients with (ANTERIOR or POSTERIOR) and without (NONE) prior cervical fusion who underwent thoracolumbar fusion were included. Demographics, radiographic alignment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on POSTERIOR patients to identify parameters predictive of UIV choice and to evaluate postoperative outcomes impacted by UIV selection. RESULTS: Among 542 patients, with 446 NONE, 72 ANTERIOR, and 24 POSTERIOR patients, mean age was 64.4 years and 432 (80%) were female. Cervical fusion patients had worse preoperative cervical and lumbosacral deformity, and PROMs (P<0.05). In the POSTERIOR cohort, preoperative LIV was frequently below the cervicothoracic junction (54%) and uncommonly (13%) connected to the thoracolumbar UIV. Multivariate analyses revealed that higher preoperative cervical SVA (coeff=-0.22, 95%CI=-0.43--0.01, P=0.038) and C2SPi (coeff=-0.72, 95%CI=-1.36--0.07, P=0.031), and lower preoperative thoracic kyphosis (coeff=0.14, 95%CI=0.01-0.28, P=0.040) and thoracolumbar lordosis (coeff=0.22, 95%CI=0.10-0.33, P=0.001) were predictive of cranial UIV. Two-year postoperatively, cervical patients continued to have worse cervical deformity and PROMs (P<0.05) but had comparable postoperative complications. Choice of thoracolumbar UIV below or above T6, as well as the number of unfused levels between constructs, did not affect patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent thoracolumbar deformity correction, prior cervical fusion was associated with more severe spinopelvic deformity and PROMs preoperatively. The choice of thoracolumbar UIV was strongly predicted by their baseline cervical and thoracolumbar alignment. Despite their poor preoperative condition, these patients still experienced significant improvements in their thoracolumbar alignment and PROMs after surgery, irrespective of UIV selection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

A comparative cohort study of surgical approaches for adult spinal deformity at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: This study was a retrospective multi-center comparative cohort study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective institutional database of operative adult spinal deformity patients was utilized. All fusions > 5 vertebral levels and including the sacrum/pelvis were eligible for inclusion. Revisions, 3 column osteotomies, and patients with < 2-year clinical follow-up were excluded. Patients were separated into 3 groups based on surgical approach: 1) posterior spinal fusion without interbody (PSF), 2) PSF with interbody (PSF-IB), and 3) anteroposterior (AP) fusion (anterior lumbar interbody fusion or lateral lumbar interbody fusion with posterior screw fixation). Intraoperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes, as well as complications, were compared between groups with ANOVA and χ2 tests. RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty-eight patients were included for study (PSF, n = 37; PSF-IB, n = 44; AP, n = 57). Intraoperatively, estimated blood loss was similar between groups (p = 0.171). However, the AP group had longer operative times (547.5 min) compared to PSF (385.1) and PSF-IB (370.7) (p < 0.001). Additionally, fusion length was shorter in PSF-IB (11.4) compared to AP (13.6) and PSF (12.9) (p = 0.004). There were no differences between the groups in terms of change in alignment from preoperative to 2 years postoperative. There were no differences in clinical outcomes. While postoperative complications were largely similar between groups, operative complications were higher in the AP group (31.6%) compared to the PSF (5.4%) and PSF-IB (9.1) groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While there were differences in intraoperative outcomes (operative time and fusion length), there were no differences in postoperative clinical or radiographic outcomes. AP fusion was associated with a higher rate of operative complications.

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.

Proximal foundation anchor variations and their correlation with unplanned return to the operating room (UPROR) in children with EOS treated with magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR).

INTRODUCTION: The evolution of MCGR technique has led to modifications in the configuration of the proximal construct to decrease the incidence of implant-related complications (IRC) and revision surgeries. However, there is no data characterizing the performance of the most used configurations reducing the risk of complications. METHODS: 487 patients were identified from an international multicenter EOS database. INCLUSION CRITERIA: EOS patients, primary dual MCGR, complete radiographs, and minimum of 2-year follow-up. 76 patients had incomplete X-rays, 5 had apical fusions, and 18 had inconclusive complications, leaving 388 patients for review. A digital spine template was created to document UIV; number of levels; number, type, and location of anchors; as well as implant configuration. First available postoperative and latest follow-up radiographs were reviewed by two senior surgeons and two spine fellows. UPROR due to IRC was defined as any change in proximal anchors between the postoperative and final follow-up radiographs. RESULTS: The most common proximal construct configuration: UIV at T2 (50.0%) with 17.5% UPROR, followed by T3 (34.0%) with 12.1% UPROR; number of levels was three (57.1%) with 16.8% UPROR and two (26.0%) with 17.0% UPROR; number of proximal anchors was six (49.9%) with 14.1% UPROR and four (27.0%) with 18.3% UPROR. The most common anchors were all screws (42.0%) with 9.9% UPROR, and all hooks (26.4%) with 31.4% UPROR (P < 0.001). The construct with the lowest rate of UPROR was a UIV at T2, with six anchors (all screws) across three levels (42 cases), with 0% UPROR. Other construct combinations that yielded 0% UPROR rates were UIV of T3, six anchors (all screws) across three levels (25 cases), and a UIV of T3 with six anchors (screws and hooks) across three3 levels (9 cases). CONCLUSION: Proximal anchor configuration impacts the incidence of UPROR due to IRC in MCGR. UIV at T2 and T3 compared to T4, and the use of all screws or combination of screws and hooks compared to all hooks were associated with a lower UPROR rate. The most common construct configuration was T2 UIV, three levels, six anchors, and all screws. The use of a combination of six anchors (screws or screws and hooks) across three levels with a UIV at T2 or T3 was associated with a lower UPROR rate. Additional research is needed to further evaluate the variables contributing to configuration selection and their association with IRC.

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.

Assessing the Reproducibility of the Structured Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT and Bard Compared to Human-Written Abstracts in the Field of Spine Surgery: Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), language model applications can generate logical text output that is difficult to distinguish from human writing. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (subsequently rebranded as "Gemini"; Google AI) were developed using distinct approaches, but little has been studied about the difference in their capability to generate the abstract. The use of AI to write scientific abstracts in the field of spine surgery is the center of much debate and controversy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and Bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery. METHODS: In total, 60 abstracts dealing with spine sections were randomly selected from 7 reputable journals and used as ChatGPT and Bard input statements to generate abstracts based on supplied paper titles. A total of 174 abstracts, divided into human-written abstracts, ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and Bard-generated abstracts, were evaluated for compliance with the structured format of journal guidelines and consistency of content. The likelihood of plagiarism and AI output was assessed using the iThenticate and ZeroGPT programs, respectively. A total of 8 reviewers in the spinal field evaluated 30 randomly extracted abstracts to determine whether they were produced by AI or human authors. RESULTS: The proportion of abstracts that met journal formatting guidelines was greater among ChatGPT abstracts (34/60, 56.6%) compared with those generated by Bard (6/54, 11.1%; P<.001). However, a higher proportion of Bard abstracts (49/54, 90.7%) had word counts that met journal guidelines compared with ChatGPT abstracts (30/60, 50%; P<.001). The similarity index was significantly lower among ChatGPT-generated abstracts (20.7%) compared with Bard-generated abstracts (32.1%; P<.001). The AI-detection program predicted that 21.7% (13/60) of the human group, 63.3% (38/60) of the ChatGPT group, and 87% (47/54) of the Bard group were possibly generated by AI, with an area under the curve value of 0.863 (P<.001). The mean detection rate by human reviewers was 53.8% (SD 11.2%), achieving a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 48.4%. A total of 56.3% (63/112) of the actual human-written abstracts and 55.9% (62/128) of AI-generated abstracts were recognized as human-written and AI-generated by human reviewers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both ChatGPT and Bard can be used to help write abstracts, but most AI-generated abstracts are currently considered unethical due to high plagiarism and AI-detection rates. ChatGPT-generated abstracts appear to be superior to Bard-generated abstracts in meeting journal formatting guidelines. Because humans are unable to accurately distinguish abstracts written by humans from those produced by AI programs, it is crucial to exercise special caution and examine the ethical boundaries of using AI programs, including ChatGPT and Bard.

Staged Versus Same-Day Surgery in Circumferential Minimally Invasive Deformity Correction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients who underwent staged vs same-day circumferential minimally invasive surgery (cMIS) for adult spinal deformity (ASD). METHODS: We reviewed staged and same-day cMIS ASD cases in a prospective multi-institution database to compare preoperative and 2-year clinical and radiographic parameters between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients with a 2-year follow-up were identified (27 staged, 58 same-day). Staged patients had more extensive surgeries and greater hospital length of stay (all P < .001). There were no significant differences in preoperative or 2-year postoperative clinical metrics between cohorts. Patients in the staged cohort also had greater preoperative coronal deformity and thus experienced greater reduction in coronal deformity at 2 years (all P < .01). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing staged or same-day cMIS correction had similar outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. Staged cMIS ASD correction may be more appropriate in patients with greater deformity, higher frailty, and who require longer, more extensive surgeries.

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.

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.

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.

What is the effect of preoperative depression on outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for adult spinal deformity? A prospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Depression has been implicated with worse immediate postoperative outcomes in adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction, yet the specific impact of depression on those patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) requires further clarity. This study aimed to evaluate the role of depression in the recovery of patients with ASD after undergoing MIS. METHODS: Patients who underwent MIS for ASD with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 1 year were included from a prospectively collected, multicenter registry. Two cohorts of patients were identified that consisted of either those affirming or denying depression on preoperative assessment. The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared included scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) for back and leg pain, Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Questionnaire (SRS-22), SF-36 physical component summary, SF-36 mental component summary (MCS), EQ-5D, and EQ-5D visual analog scale. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 147 (18.4%) patients screened positive for preoperative depression. The nondepressed cohort had an average of 4.83 levels fused, and the depressed cohort had 5.56 levels fused per patient (p = 0.267). At 1-year follow-up, 10 patients still reported depression, representing a 63% decrease. Postoperatively, both cohorts demonstrated improvement in their PROMs; however, at 1-year follow-up, those without depression had statistically better outcomes based on the EQ-5D, MCS, and SRS-22 scores (p < 0.05). Patients with depression continued to experience higher NRS leg scores at 1-year follow-up (3.63 vs 2.22, p = 0.018). After controlling for covariates, the authors found that depression significantly impacted only 1-year follow-up MCS scores (ß = 8.490, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Depressed and nondepressed patients reported similar improvements after MIS surgery, except MCS scores were more likely to improve in nondepressed patients.

An Integrated 3-Dimentional Navigation System Increases the Accuracy, Efficiency, and Safety of Percutaneous Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw Placement in Minimally Invasive Approaches: A Randomized Cadaveric Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Cadaveric study. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare a novel, integrated 3D navigational system (NAV) and conventional fluoroscopy in the accuracy, efficiency, and radiation exposure of thoracolumbar percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement. METHODS: Twelve skeletally mature cadaveric specimens were obtained for twelve individual surgeons. Each participant placed bilateral PS at 11 segments, from T8 to S1. Prior to insertion, surgeons were randomized to the sequence of techniques and the side (left or right). Following placement, a CT scan of the spine was obtained for each cadaver, and an independent reviewer assessed the accuracy of screw placement using the Gertzbein grading system. Outcome metrics of interest included a comparison of breach incidence/severity, screw placement time, total procedure time, and radiation exposure between the techniques. Bivariate statistics were employed to compare outcomes at each level. RESULTS: A total of 262 screws (131 using each technique) were placed. The incidence of cortical breaches was significantly lower with NAV compared to FG (9% vs 18%; P = .048). Of breaches with NAV, 25% were graded as moderate or severe compared to 39% in the FG subgroup (P = .034). Median time for screw placement was significantly lower with NAV (2.7 vs 4.1 min/screw; P = .012), exclusive of registration time. Cumulative radiation exposure to the surgeon was significantly lower for NAV-guided placement (9.4 vs 134 µGy, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The use of NAV significantly decreased the incidence of cortical breaches, the severity of screw breeches, screw placement time, and radiation exposure to the surgeon when compared to traditional FG.

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

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of correcting normative segmental lordosis values on postoperative outcomes. BACKGROUND: Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remain unclear. PATIENTS AND 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 undercorrected and overcorrected. Surgical technique, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and two years. RESULTS: In total, 510 patients with a mean age of 64.6, a mean Charlson comorbidity index 2.08, and a mean 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 Oswestry disability index 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 (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P <0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebrae (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 proximal junctional failure with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Functional Alignment Within the Fusion in Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) Improves Outcomes and Minimizes Mechanical Failures.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of an adult deformity database. OBJECTIVE: To identify pelvic incidence (PI) and age-appropriate physical function alignment targets using a component angle of T1-pelvic angle within the fusion to define correction and their relationship to proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and clinical outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In preoperative planning, a patient's PI is often utilized to determine the alignment target. In a trend toward more patient-specific planning, age-specific alignment has been shown to reduce the risk of mechanical failures. PI and age have not been analyzed with respect to defining a functional alignment. METHODS: A database of patients with operative adult spinal deformity was analyzed. Patients fused to the pelvis and upper-instrumented vertebrae above T11 were included. Alignment within the fusion correlated with clinical outcomes and PI. Short form 36-Physical Component Score (SF36-PCS) normative data and PI were used to compute functional alignment for each patient. Overcorrected, under-corrected, and functionally corrected groups were determined using T10-pelvic angle (T10PA). RESULTS: In all, 1052 patients met the inclusion criteria. T10PA correlated with SF36-PCS and PI (R=0.601). At six weeks, 40.7% were functionally corrected, 39.4% were overcorrected, and 20.9% were under-corrected. The PJK incidence rate was 13.6%. Overcorrected patients had the highest PJK rate (18.1%) compared with functionally (11.3%) and under-corrected (9.5%) patients ( P <0.05). Overcorrected patients had a trend toward more PJK revisions. All groups improved in HRQL; however, under-corrected patients had the worst 1-year SF36-PCS offset relative to normative patients of equivalent age (-8.1) versus functional (-6.1) and overcorrected (-4.5), P <0.05. CONCLUSIONS: T10PA was used to determine functional alignment, an alignment based on PI and age-appropriate physical function. Correcting patients to functional alignment produced improvements in clinical outcomes, with the lowest rates of PJK. This patient-specific approach to spinal alignment provides adult spinal deformity correction targets that can be used intraoperatively.

Determining the best vertebra for measuring pelvic incidence and spinopelvic parameters in adult spinal deformity patients with transitional anatomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if spinal deformity patients with L5 sacralization should have pelvic incidence (PI) and other spinopelvic parameters measured from the L5 or S1 endplate. METHODS: This study was a multicenter retrospective comparative cohort study comprising a large database of adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients and a database of asymptomatic individuals. Linear regression modeling was used to determine normative T1 pelvic angle (TPA) and PI - lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch (PI-LL) based on PI and age in a database of asymptomatic subjects. In an ASD database, patients with radiographic evidence of L5 sacralization had the PI, LL, and TPA measured from the superior endplate of S1 and then also from L5. The differences in TPA and PI-LL from normative were calculated in the sacralization cohort relative to L5 and S1 and correlated to the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patients were grouped based on the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab PI-LL modifier (0, +, or ++) using the L5 PI-LL and S1 PI-LL. Baseline ODI and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores were compared across and within groups. RESULTS: Among 1179 ASD patients, 276 (23.4%) had transitional anatomy, 176 with sacralized L5 (14.9%) and 100 (8.48%) with lumbarization of S1. The 176 patients with sacralized L5 were analyzed. When measured using the L5 superior endplate, pelvic parameters were significantly smaller than those measured relative to S1 (PI: 24.5° ± 11.0° vs 55.7° ± 12.0°, p = 0.001;TPA: 11.2° ± 12.0° vs 20.3° ± 12.5°, p = 0.001; and PI-LL: 0.67° ± 21.1° vs 11.4° ± 20.8°, p = 0.001). When measured from S1, 76 (43%), 45 (25.6%), and 55 (31.3%) patients had SRS-Schwab PI-LL modifiers of 0, +, and ++, respectively, compared with 124 (70.5%), 22 (12.5%), and 30 (17.0%), respectively, when measured from L5. There were significant differences in ODI and PCS scores as the SRS-Schwab grade increased regardless of L5 or S1 measurement. The L5 group had lower PCS functional scores for SRS-Schwab modifiers 0 and ++ relative to same grades in the S1 group. Offset from normative TPA (0.5° ± 11.1° vs 9.6° ± 10.8°, p = 0.001) and PI-LL (4.5° ± 20.4° vs 15.2° ± 19.3°, p = 0.001) were smaller when measuring from L5. Moreover, S1 measurements were more correlated with health status by ODI (TPA offset from normative: S1, R = 0.326 vs L5, R = 0.285; PI-LL offset from normative: S1, R = 0.318 vs L5, R = 0.274). CONCLUSIONS: Measuring the PI and spinopelvic parameters at L5 in sacralized anatomy results in underestimating spinal deformity and is less correlated with health-related quality of life. Surgeons may consider measuring PI and spinopelvic parameters relative to S1 rather than at L5 in patients with a sacralized L5.

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.

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.