Search

Study Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data., Objective: This study evaluates the impact of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and knee arthroplasty on alignments and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMS) of patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery., Background: The relationship between knee OA and spinal alignment in patients with ASD is incompletely understood. It is also unknown how patients with knee arthroplasty and ASD compare to ASD patients with native knees., Methods: Baseline full-body radiographs were used, and hip and knee OA were graded by two independent reviewers using the KL classification. Spinopelvic parameters and PROMs were compared across the different knee OA groups and compared between patients with knee replacement and native knees., Results: 199 patients with bilateral non severe OA (G1), 31 patients with unilateral severe knee OA (G2), and 60 patients with bilateral severe knee OA (G3). Patients with severe knee OA presented with worse spinopelvic parameters. However, after multivariable regression analysis controlling for age, frailty, PI, T1PA, knee OA was an independent predictor of knee flexion (G1:-0.02±7.3, G2: 7.8±9.4, G3: 4.5±8.7, P<0.001), and ankle dorsiflexion (G1: 2.3±4.0, G2: 6.6±4.5, G3: 5.1±4.1, P<0.001). There was no difference in PROMs (P>0.05). Secondary analysis included 96 patients: 48 patients (50%) with non-severe knee OA, and 48 patients (50%) with knee replacement. There was no difference in radiographic parameters or PROMs between the groups., Conclusion: In this study of complex ASD patients, patients with worse spinal deformity were more likely to have concomitant knee OA. Knee OA was shown to be a predictor of knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion angles, but was not associated with worse PROMs in this study population. Patients with knee arthroplasty, however, had comparable spinal alignment and PROMs relative to those with mild OA., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients with sagittal plane deformity (N) or structural lumbar/thoraco-lumbar (TL) curves can be treated with fusions stopping at the TL junction or extending to the upper thoracic (UT) spine. This study evaluates the impact on cost/cumulative quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in patients treated with TL vs UT fusion., Methods: ASD patients with > 4-level fusion and 2-year follow-up were included. Index and total episode-of-care costs were estimated using average itemized direct costs obtained from hospital records. Cumulative QALY gained were calculated from preoperative to 2-year postoperative change in Short Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) scores. The TL and UT groups comprised patients with upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) at T9-T12 and T2-T5, respectively., Results: Of 566 patients with type N or L curves, mean age was 63.2 ± 12.1 years, 72% were female and 93% Caucasians. Patients in the TL group had better sagittal vertical axis (7.3 ± 6.9 vs. 9.2 ± 8.1 cm, p = 0.01), lower surgical invasiveness (- 30; p < 0.001), and shorter OR time (- 35 min; p = 0.01). Index and total costs were 20% lower in the TL than in the UT group (p < 0.001). Cost/QALY was 65% lower (492,174.6 vs. 963,391.4), and 2-year QALY gain was 40% higher, in the TL than UT group (0.15 vs. 0.10; p = 0.02). Multivariate model showed TL fusions had lower total cost (p = 0.001) and higher QALY gain (p = 0.03) than UT fusions., Conclusion: In Schwab type N or L curves, TL fusions showed lower 2-year cost and improved QALY gain without increased reoperation rates or length of stay than UT fusions., Level of Evidence: III., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Scoliosis Research Society.)

Study Design: Case-control study., Objective: To introduce a classification system that will include the major types of degenerative changes and failures related to the proximal junction, and to determine the clinical course and characteristics for the different types of proximal junctional degeneration., Background: Proximal junctional kyphosis and failures are well recognized after adult spinal fusion; however, a standardized classification is lacking., Materials and Methods: The proposed system identified 4 different patterns of proximal junctional degeneration: (1) Type 1 (multilevel symmetrical collapse), (2) Type 2 (single adjacent level collapse), (3) Type 3 (fracture), and (4) Type 4 (spondylolisthesis). A single-center database was reviewed from 2018 to 2021. Patients 18 years or older of age, who underwent posterior spinal fusion of ≥3 levels with an upper instrumented vertebral level between T8 and L2, and a follow-up of ≥2 years were included. Radiographic measurements, revision surgery, and time to revision were the primary outcomes., Results: One hundred fifty patients were included with a mean age of 65.1 (±9.8) years and a mean follow-up of 3.2 (±1) years. Sixty-nine patients (46%) developed significant degenerative changes in the proximal junction and were classified accordingly. Twenty (13%) were type 1, 17 (11%) were type 2, 22 (15%) were type 3, and 10 (7%) were type 4. Type 3 had a significantly shorter time to revision with a mean of 0.9 (±0.9) years. Types 3 and 4 had greater preoperative sagittal vertical axis, and types 1 and 3 had greater final follow-up lumbar lordosis. Bone density measured by Hounsfield units showed lower measurements for type 3. Types 1 and 4 had lower rates of developing proximal junctional kyphosis. Type 1 had the lowest revision rate with 40% (types 2, 3, and 4 were 77%, 73%, and 80%, respectively, P = 0.045)., Conclusion: This novel classification system defines different modes of degeneration and failures at the proximal junction, and future studies with larger sample sizes are needed for validation., Level of Evidence: Level III., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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/m 2 , 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., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Scoliosis Research Society.)

Purpose: Understanding the mechanism and extent of preoperative deformity in revision procedures may provide data to prevent future failures in lumbar spinal fusion patients., Methods: ASD patients without prior spine surgery (PRIMARY) and with prior short (SHORT) and long (LONG) fusions were included. SHORT patients were stratified into modes of failure: implant, junctional, malalignment, and neurologic. Baseline demographics, spinopelvic alignment, offset from alignment targets, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared across PRIMARY and SHORT cohorts. Segmental lordosis analyses, assessing under-, match, or over-correction to segmental and global lordosis targets, were performed by SRS-Schwab coronal curve type and construct length., Results: Among 785 patients, 430 (55%) were PRIMARY and 355 (45%) were revisions. Revision procedures included 181 (23%) LONG and 174 (22%) SHORT corrections. SHORT modes of failure included 27% implant, 40% junctional, 73% malalignment, and/or 28% neurologic. SHORT patients were older, frailer, and had worse baseline deformity (PT, PI-LL, SVA) and PROMs (NRS, ODI, VR-12, SRS-22) compared to primary patients (p < 0.001). Segmental lordosis analysis identified 93%, 88%, and 62% undercorrected patients at LL, L1-L4, and L4-S1, respectively. SHORT patients more often underwent 3-column osteotomies (30% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and had higher ISSG Surgical Invasiveness Score (87.8 vs. 78.3, p = 0.006)., Conclusions: Nearly half of adult spinal deformity surgeries were revision fusions. Revision short fusions were associated with sagittal malalignment, often due to undercorrection of segmental lordosis goals, and frequently required more invasive procedures. Further initiatives to optimize alignment in lumbar fusions are needed to avoid costly and invasive deformity corrections., Level of Evidence: IV: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Smoking has been shown to negatively impact spinal health, as well as the outcomes of spinal fusion. Published reports show conflicting data regarding whether smoking negatively impacts patient outcomes following lumbar decompression. The objective of this study was to investigate whether smoking affects the outcomes of patients undergoing lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis or herniated disc., Methods: The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients with spinal stenosis or lumbar disc herniation who underwent one- or two-level lumbar decompression without fusion. All patients had preoperative and 12-month outcome measures and were divided into groups of nonsmokers and current smokers. Outcomes were compared between the two groups, as well as the percentage of patients reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold for numeric rating scale (NRS) back and leg pain scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)., Results: Of 17,271 patients, 14,233 were nonsmokers and 3038 were current smokers. Smokers had worse baseline NRS back and leg pain, ODI, and EQ-5D scores and experienced slightly less improvement in all measures following lumbar decompression (p ≤ 0.009), although changes were largely similar, and a high percentage of patients achieved the MCID thresholds for NRS back pain (78% nonsmokers vs 75% smokers), NRS leg pain (79% nonsmokers vs 73% smokers), and ODI (74% nonsmokers vs 68% smokers). Comparison of propensity-matched cohorts did not identify any difference in outcomes in smokers versus nonsmokers., Conclusions: In patients undergoing lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis or herniated disc, smokers demonstrated slightly less improvement in outcomes compared with nonsmokers, and a high proportion of both groups achieved meaningful improvement with surgery. While smoking cessation should be strongly encouraged in all patients, lumbar decompression procedures for spinal stenosis and herniated disc should not be denied to smokers.

Background: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is commonly utilized to reduce blood loss in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Despite its widespread use, there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal dosing regimen. The aim of this study was to assess differences in blood loss and complications between high, medium, and low-dose TXA regimens among patients undergoing surgery for complex ASD., Methods: A multicenter database was retrospectively analyzed to identify 265 patients with complex ASD. Patients were separated into 3 groups by TXA regimen: (1) low dose (<20-mg/kg loading dose with ≤2-mg/kg/hr maintenance dose), (2) medium dose (20 to 50-mg/kg loading dose with 2 to 5-mg/kg/hr maintenance dose), and (3) high dose (>50-mg/kg loading dose with ≥5-mg/kg/hr maintenance dose). The measured outcomes included blood loss, complications, and red blood cell (RBC) units transfused intraoperatively and perioperatively. The multivariable analysis controlled for TXA dosing regimen, levels fused, operating room time, preoperative hemoglobin, 3-column osteotomy, and posterior interbody fusion., Results: The cohort was predominantly White (91.3%) and female (69.1%) and had a mean age of 61.6 years. Of the 265 patients, 54 (20.4%) received low-dose, 131 (49.4%) received medium-dose, and 80 (30.2%) received high-dose TXA. The median blood loss was 1,200 mL (interquartile range [IQR], 750 to 2,000). The median RBC units transfused intraoperatively was 1.0 (IQR, 0.0 to 2.0), and the median RBC units transfused perioperatively was 2.0 (IQR, 1.0 to 4.0). Compared with the high-dose group, the low-dose group had increased blood loss (by 513.0 mL; p = 0.022) as well as increased RBC units transfused intraoperatively (by 0.6 units; p < 0.001) and perioperatively (by 0.3 units; p = 0.024). The medium-dose group had increased blood loss (by 491.8 mL; p = 0.006) as well as increased RBC units transfused intraoperatively (by 0.7 units; p < 0.001) and perioperatively (by 0.5 units; p < 0.001) compared with the high-dose group., Conclusions: Patients with ASD who received high-dose intraoperative TXA had fewer RBC transfusions intraoperatively, fewer RBC transfusions perioperatively, and less blood loss than those who received low or medium-dose TXA, with no differences in the rates of seizure or thromboembolic complications., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: This publication was made possible by the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR), which is funded in part through a grant (UL1TR003098) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), which is a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. V. Lafage received grant funding from the International Spine Study Group pertaining to the submitted manuscript (paid directly to the institution). J. Smith received grant funding from DePuy Synthes and ISSG pertaining to the submitted manuscript (paid directly to the institution). S. Bess received grant funding from Medtronic, Stryker, Globus, Carlsmed, and SI-BONE pertaining to the submitted manuscript (paid directly to the institution). L. Lenke received funding from Scoliosis Research Society pertaining to the submitted manuscript (paid directly to the institution) and nonfinancial assistance from the Harms Study Group (paid directly to the institution). The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/I227)., (Copyright © 2024 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: Our understanding of the relationship between sagittal alignment and mechanical complications is evolving. In normal spines, the L1-pelvic angle (L1PA) accounts for the magnitude and distribution of lordosis and is strongly associated with pelvic incidence (PI), and the T4-pelvic angle (T4PA) is within 4° of the L1PA. We aimed to examine the clinical implications of realignment to a normal L1PA and T4-L1PA mismatch., Methods: A prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity registry was queried for patients who underwent fixation from the T1-T5 region to the sacrum and had 2-year radiographic follow-up. Normal sagittal alignment was defined as previously described for normal spines: L1PA = PI × 0.5 - 21°, and T4-L1PA mismatch = 0°. Mechanical failure was defined as severe proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), displaced rod fracture, or reoperation for junctional failure, pseudarthrosis, or rod fracture within 2 years. Multivariable nonlinear logistic regression was used to define target ranges for L1PA and T4-L1PA mismatch that minimized the risk of mechanical failure. The relationship between changes in T4PA and changes in global sagittal alignment according to the C2-pelvic angle (C2PA) was determined using linear regression. Lastly, multivariable regression was used to assess associations between initial postoperative C2PA and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year, adjusting for preoperative scores and age., Results: The median age of the 247 included patients was 64 years (interquartile range, 57 to 69 years), and 202 (82%) were female. Deviation from a normal L1PA or T4-L1PA mismatch in either direction was associated with a significantly higher risk of mechanical failure, independent of age. Risk was minimized with an L1PA of PI × 0.5 - (19° ± 2°) and T4-L1PA mismatch between -3° and +1°. Changes in T4PA and in C2PA at the time of final follow-up were strongly associated (r2 = 0.96). Higher postoperative C2PA was independently associated with more disability, more pain, and worse self-image at 1 year., Conclusions: We defined sagittal alignment targets using L1PA (relative to PI) and the T4-L1PA mismatch, which are both directly modifiable during surgery. In patients undergoing long fusion to the sacrum, realignment based on these targets may lead to fewer mechanical failures., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The International Spine Study Group (ISSG) is funded through research grants from NuVasive, SI-Bone, DePuy Synthes Spine, K2M, Stryker, Biomet, AlloSource, and Orthofix, and individual donations. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/I191)., (Copyright © 2024 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Purpose: To evaluate the variability in intraoperative fluid management during adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, and analyze the association with complications, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and length of hospital stay (LOS)., Methods: Multicenter comparative cohort study. Patients ≥ 18 years old and with ASD were included. Intraoperative intravenous (IV) fluid data were collected including: crystalloids, colloids, crystalloid/colloid ratio (C/C), total IV fluid (tIVF, ml), normalized total IV fluid (nIVF, ml/kg/h), input/output ratio (IOR), input-output difference (IOD), and normalized input-output difference (nIOD, ml/kg/h). Data from different centers were compared for variability analysis, and fluid parameters were analyzed for possible associations with the outcomes., Results: Seven hundred ninety-eight patients with a median age of 65.2 were included. Among different surgical centers, tIVF, nIVF, and C/C showed significant variation (p < 0.001 for each) with differences of 4.8-fold, 3.7-fold, and 4.9-fold, respectively. Two hundred ninety-two (36.6%) patients experienced at least one in-hospital complication, and ninety-two (11.5%) were IV fluid related. Univariate analysis showed significant relations for: LOS and tIVF (ρ = 0.221, p < 0.001), IOD (ρ = 0.115, p = 0.001) and IOR (ρ = -0.138, p < 0.001); IV fluid-related complications and tIVF (p = 0.049); ICU stay and tIVF, nIVF, IOD and nIOD (p < 0.001 each); extended ICU stay and tIVF (p < 0.001), nIVF (p = 0.010) and IOD (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis controlling for confounders showed significant relations for: LOS and tIVF (p < 0.001) and nIVF (p = 0.003); ICU stay and IOR (p = 0.002), extended ICU stay and tIVF (p = 0.004)., Conclusion: Significant variability and lack of standardization in intraoperative IV fluid management exists between different surgical centers. Excessive fluid administration was found to be correlated with negative outcomes., Level of Evidence: III., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Scoliosis Research Society.)

Study Design: This study was a retrospective propensity-matched study of patients receiving opioid sparing anesthesia (OSA) and those who did not receive an opioid sparing anesthesia regimen., Objectives: To determine whether patients undergoing spine fusion for deformity fared better with an OSA regimen than those not having an OSA regimen., Summary of Background Data: There has been a tremendous focus on opioid overuse. Accordingly, OSA regimens are being introduced to reduce narcotic use. However, OSA has not been studied in the adult spine deformity population., Methods: 43 patients undergoing fusion of at least five levels in the thoracolumbar spine received OSA. They were matched to 43 patients who did receive an OSA regimen. We analyzed a number of metrics including blood loss, anesthesia time, post anesthesia care unit (PACU) pain scores, postoperative pain scores, complications, length of stay, and readmissions., Results: The OSA group had significantly lower pain scores both before transfer to (4.6 vs. 7.6, P=0.000) and after transfer from (4.2 vs. 6.2 P=0.002) the PACU. Opioid use was significantly lower in the OSA group (454 vs. 241 MMEs by POD4, P=0.022). Fewer patients required blood transfusion in the OSA (1 vs. 28, P=0.000) group. Fewer patients in the OSA group had constipation and urinary retention (1 vs. 9, P=0.015). There was no difference in discharge home or to a facility. The lengths of hospital (4.33 vs. 6.19, P=0.009) and ICU (0.12 vs. 0.70 days, P=0.009) stay were significantly shorter in the OSA group., Conclusion: OSA regimens have numerous benefits in patients undergoing spinal deformity surgery including less opioid use, fewer postoperative complications, and a reduced length of stay., Competing Interests: Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare related to the subject of the manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Multicenter, prospective cohort., Objectives: Malalignment following adult spine deformity (ASD) surgery can impact outcomes and increase mechanical complications. We assess whether preoperative goals for sagittal alignment following ASD surgery are achieved., Methods: ASD patients were prospectively enrolled based on 3 criteria: deformity severity (PI-LL ≥25°, TPA ≥30°, SVA ≥15 cm, TCobb≥70° or TLCobb≥50°), procedure complexity (≥12 levels fused, 3-CO or ACR) and/or age (>65 and ≥7 levels fused). The surgeon documented sagittal alignment goals prior to surgery. Goals were compared with achieved alignment on first follow-up standing radiographs., Results: The 266 enrolled patients had a mean age of 61.0 years (SD = 14.6) and 68% were women. Mean instrumented levels was 13.6 (SD = 3.8), and 23.2% had a 3-CO. Mean (SD) offsets (achieved-goal) were: SVA = -8.5 mm (45.6 mm), PI-LL = -4.6° (14.6°), TK = 7.2° (14.7°), reflecting tendencies to undercorrect SVA and PI-LL and increase TK. Goals were achieved for SVA, PI-LL, and TK in 74.4%, 71.4%, and 68.8% of patients, respectively, and was achieved for all 3 parameters in 37.2% of patients. Three factors were independently associated with achievement of all 3 alignment goals: use of PACs/equivalent for surgical planning ( P < .001), lower baseline GCA ( P = .009), and surgery not including a 3-CO ( P = .037)., Conclusions: Surgeons failed to achieve goal alignment of each sagittal parameter in ∼25-30% of ASD patients. Goal alignment for all 3 parameters was only achieved in 37.2% of patients. Those at greatest risk were patients with more severe deformity. Advancements are needed to enable more consistent translation of preoperative alignment goals to the operating room., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: reports consultancy fees from ZimVie, NuVasive, Cerapedics, and Carlsmed; receives royalties from Zimmer Biomet and Nuvasive; holds stock in Alphatec and NuVasive; receives research funding to his institution from DePuy Synthes, International Spine Study Group Foundation (ISSGF), and AOSpine; receives fellowship grant funding to his institution from AOSpine; serves on the Executive Committee of the ISSGF; and serves on the editorial boards of Journal of Neurosurgery Spine, Neurosurgery, Operative Neurosurgery, and Spine Deformity. is a consultant for ISSGF. is a consultant for Globus Medical and Alphatec; receives royalties from NuVasive; receives research support from ISSG; receives honoraria from DePuy Synthes, Stryker, and Implanet; and has leadership roles in ISSG and the Scoliosis Research Society. is a consultant for DePuy Synthes, Stryker, and Medtronic, SI Bone, and Agnovos; receives honoraria and a fellowship grant paid to an institution from AO Spine; and has leadership roles with AOSpine. Dr. Kim receives royalties from Zimmer Biomet, Acuity Surgical, and K2M-Stryker; is a consultant for NuVasive; receives research support from the ISSGF; is on advisory boards for Vivex Biology and Aspen Medical; and has other financial or non-financial interests with AOSpine. is a consultant for Medtronic, SpineWave, Terumo, and Royal Biologics; receives honoraria from Cervical Spine Research Society, Globus Medical, and Zimmer; serves on the editorial or governing board for Spine journal; and receives research support from Allosource. receives research support from Stryker, Biom’Up, Pfizer, the Alan L. & Jacqueline B. Stuart Spine Center, National Health Foundation, Cerapedics, Empirical Spine, Inc., TSRH, and Scoliosis Research Society; receives royalties from Acuity, Medtronic, and NuVasive; is a consultant for Acuity, DePuy, Medtronic, NuVasive, FYR Medical, and Stryker; receives honoraria from Baxter, Broadwater, NASS, and Pacira Pharmaceuticals; holds patents with Medtronic; participates on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Medtronic; has a leadership role in the National Spine Health Foundation; owns stock/stock options in Cingulate Therapeutics and FYR Medical; is an employee of Norton Healthcare, Inc.; and serves as a journal reviewer for Global Spine Journal, Spine Deformity, and The Spine Journal. and receives research/fellowship support from NuVasive, Medtronic, SeaSpine, SI Bone, and AONA; receives royalties from SI Bone, Nuvasive, Seaspine, Aesculap, and Globus Medical; is a consultant for Aesculap, NuVasive, SI Bone, SeaSpine, Spinal Elements, Biedermann-Motech, Silony, Neo Medical, Depuy, Medtronic, Carevature, and ControlRad; has received payment/honoraria from Radius; has patents with Globus, Spine Innovation, and SI Bone; has leadership role with San Diego Spine Foundation; and has stock/stock options with Alphatec, Nuvasive, Seaspine, and SI Bone. receives grants/research support from Medtronic and Orthofix; receives royalties from Spineart and Stryker; is a consultant for Stryker Spine, Spineart, and Medtronic; and has received payment for expert testimony from multiple law firms. is a consultant for NuVasive, Viseon, Carlsmed, SI Bone, and SeaSpine; holds patents with Stryker, NuVasive, and SeaSpine; has leadership roles with Global Spine Outreach and San Diego Spine Foundation; has stock or stock options with Alphatec, SeaSpine, and NuVasive; and receives royalties from NuVasive and K2M/Stryker. is a consultant for Globus, NuVasive, and Medtronic; receives royalties from Altus; receives grants from Medtronic; and has stock or stock options from One Point Surgical. Dr. receives travel expenses to teach at the ISSG-Medtronic Spine Course for fellows and residents; and has a leadership role with the Canadian Spine Society. receives grants/research support from Prosydiuan and NuVasive. receives honoraria from Wolters Kluwer; received support for travel from AO Spine; has leadership roles with Scoliosis Research Society and AO Spine; and receives research support from the Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation and San Diego Spine Foundation. is a consultant for Stryker Spine; receives grant/research support from Medtronic, DePuy Synthes, and AOSpine; receives honoraria from Medtronic, Stryker Spine, DePuy Synthes, Scoliosis Research Society, and AOSpine; receives support for travel from AO Spine and Scoliosis Research Society; and is on an advisory board/panel for AOSpine Research Commission and Scoliosis Research Society Research Task Force; and is Chair of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Deformity. owns stock in J&J; is a consultant for DePuy, Medtronic, Globus; receives royalties from Innomed, DePuy, and Globus; receives honoraria from AO Spine, Wright State, and LSU; serves on the board of directors of the Scoliosis Research Society; receives travel reimbursements from DePuy, Globus, Scoliosis Research Society; and has a voluntary relationship with the National Spine Health Foundation. is a consultant for MSD, Zimmer Biomet, and Mainstay Medical; receives royalties from Zimmer Biomet, Medtronic, and Stryker; owns stock in VFT Solutions and SeaSpine; is an executive committee member of ISSG. receives royalties from DePuy Spine, Globus, and Blue Ocean Spine; is a consultant for DePuy Spine, Globus, and Blue Ocean Spine; has a leadership role in the Scoliosis Research Society and International Spine Study Group Foundation; has stock or stock options in Progenerative Medical; and has received research support from DePuy Spine and ISSGF. receives royalties from Stryker, Biomet Zimmer Spine, DePuy Synthes, NuVasive, Next Orthosurgical, K2M, and Medicrea; is a consultant for DePuy Synthes, Medtronic, Medicrea, K2M, Agada Medical, and Carlsmed; receives research support from Titan Spine, DePuy Synthes, and ISSG; serves on the editorial board of Operative Neurosurgery; receives grant funding from SRS; serves on the executive committee of ISSG; is the director of Global Spinal Analytics; and is the safety and value committee chair of SRS. is a consultant for Medtronic, ABRYX, and Acuity Surgical; receives research/grant support from AOSpine, Scoliosis Research Society, and Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation; receives royalties from Medtronic and Acuity Surgical; and receives other financial support from Broadwater, AOSpine, and Scoliosis Research Society. is a consultant for NuVasive, SI Bone, and Proprio; owns stock in NuVasive; holds patents with NuVasive; receives fellowship funding from Globus, Medtronic, and NuVasive; and receives royalties from NuVasive, Medtronic, and SI Bone; has leadership roles with SRS and CSRS; and receives study-related clinical or research support from DePuy Synthes and ISSGF. is a consultant for Zimmer Biomet, NuVasive, Cerapedics, Carlsmed, SeaSpine, and DePuy Synthes; owns stock in Alphatec and NuVasive; receives study-related clinical or research support from DePuy Synthes and ISSGF; receives non–study-related clinical or research support from DePuy Synthes, ISSGF, and AO Spine; receives royalties from Zimmer Biomet and NuVasive; and receives fellowship support from AO Spine. is a consultant for Alphatec, Stryker, and MiRus; receives honoraria from Stryker; holds patents with Stryker; receives study-related clinical or research support from Medtronic, Globus, NuVasive, Stryker, Carlsmed, and SI Bone; receives non–study-related clinical or research support from DePuy Synthes; and receives royalties from Stryker and NuVasive. report no conflicts of interest.

Purpose: To assess impact of baseline disability on HRQL outcomes., Methods: CD patients with baseline (BL) and 2 year (2Y) data included, and ranked into quartiles by baseline NDI, from lowest/best score (Q1) to highest/worst score (Q4). Means comparison tests analyzed differences between quartiles. ANCOVA and logistic regressions assessed differences in outcomes while accounting for covariates (BL deformity, comorbidities, HRQLs, surgical details and complications)., Results: One hundred and sixteen patients met inclusion (Age:60.97 ± 10.45 years, BMI: 28.73 ± 7.59 kg/m 2 , CCI: 0.94 ± 1.31). The cohort mean cSVA was 38.54 ± 19.43 mm and TS-CL: 37.34 ± 19.73. Mean BL NDI by quartile was: Q1: 25.04 ± 8.19, Q2: 41.61 ± 2.77, Q3: 53.31 ± 4.32, and Q4: 69.52 ± 8.35. Q2 demonstrated greatest improvement in NRS Neck at 2Y (-3.93), compared to Q3 (-1.61, p = .032) and Q4 (-1.41, p = .015). Q2 demonstrated greater improvement in NRS Back (-1.71), compared to Q4 (+ 0.84, p = .010). Q2 met MCID in NRS Neck at the highest rates (69.9%), especially compared to Q4 (30.3%), p = .039. Q2 had the greatest improvement in EQ-5D (+ 0.082), compared to Q1 (+ 0.073), Q3 (+ 0.022), and Q4 (+ 0.014), p = .034. Q2 also had the greatest mJOA improvement (+ 1.517), p = .042., Conclusions: Patients in Q2, with mean BL NDI of 42, consistently demonstrated the greatest improvement in HRQLs whereas those in Q4, (NDI 70), saw the least. BL NDI between 39 and 44 may represent a disability "Sweet Spot," within which operative intervention maximizes patient-reported outcomes. Furthermore, delaying intervention until patients are severely disabled, beyond an NDI of 61, may limit the benefits of surgery., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Scoliosis Research Society.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Longitudinal observational cohort., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of Quantitative Romberg measurements as pre-op and post-op balance outcome measures., Summary of Background Data: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is characterized by balance deficiencies produced by impaired proprioception. Evaluation is subjective, and binary physical exam findings lack the precision to assess postoperative outcome improvement., Methods: CSM patients were prospectively enrolled to undergo preoperative and postoperative Quantitative Romberg tests on a force plate to record center of pressure (COP) motion for 30 seconds with eyes open followed by eyes closed. Revision cases were excluded. Kinematics of COP movement parameters were compared between preoperative and postoperative state for each patient., Results: Twenty-seven CSM patients were enrolled and completed both pre/post-testing. The mean age was 60.0 years, with 13 (48%) males and 9 (33%) smokers. Mean number of surgical levels was 2.48. The minimum mean follow-up was six months. There was a statistically significant improvement in eyes closed after surgery compared with preoperative for total COP motion (523.44 vs. 387.00 cm, P <0.001), average sway speed (17.41 vs. 13.00 cm/s, P <0.001), and total lateral COP motion (253.44 vs. 186.70 cm, P <0.001). There was no statistically significant improvement in the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (13.29 vs. 14.29, P =0.28)., Conclusions: CSM balance findings on Quantitative Romberg testing significantly improve postoperatively in patients with CSM. These findings support this testing as representative of proprioceptive balance deficiencies seen in CSM. Quantitative Romberg may be used as an objective measure of clinical outcome and assist in stratification of surgical interventions, surgery timing, and technique., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Disclosure: Funding for this study was received from DePuy Synthes Spine, NuVasive, and K2/Stryker. In addition, the International Spine Study Group reports grants to the foundation from Medtronic, Globus, Stryker, SI Bone, and Carlsmed. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H962)., (Copyright © 2024 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Study Design: Diagnostic accuracy study., Objective: To establish a simple method of phantomless bone mineral density (BMD) measurement by using preoperative lumbar Computed Tomography (CT) scans, and compare the accuracy of reference tissue combinations to diagnose low BMD against uncalibrated Hounsfield units (HUs)., Summary of Background Data: HUs are used as a measure of BMD; however, associations between HU and T-scores vary widely. Quantitative CT (qCT) scans are more accurate, but they require density calibration with an object of known density (phantom), which limits feasibility. As an emerging technique, phantomless (internal) calibration of routine CT scans may provide a good opportunity for screening., Methods: Patients who were scheduled to undergo lumbar surgery, with a preoperative CT scan, and a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan within six months were included. Four tissues were selected for calibration: subcutaneous adipose (A), erector spinae (ES), psoas (P) and aortic blood (AB). The HUs of these tissues were used in linear regression against ground-truth values. Calibrations were performed by using two different internal tissues at a time to maintain simplicity and in-office applicability.Volumetric bone mineral densities (vBMD) derived from internally calibrated CT scans were analyzed for new threshold values for low bone density. Areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: 45 patients were included (M/F=10/35, mean age:63.3). Calibrated vBMDs had stronger correlations with DXA T-scores when compared with HUs, with L2 exhibiting the highest coefficients. Calibration by using A and ES with the threshold of 162 mg/cm3 had a sensitivity of 90% in detecting low BMD (AUC=0.671)., Conclusions: This novel method allows simple, in-office calibration of routine preoperative CT scans without the use of a phantom. Calibration using adipose and erector spinae with a threshold of 162 mg/cm3 is proposed for low bone density screening with high sensitivity (90%)., Level of Evidence: Level III., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: RMC, LYC: No relationships to disclosie. CHC: Consulting: Medtronic, NuVasive. SDG: Consulting: K2M / Stryker, Medtronic, Proprio, DePuy. JRD: Consulting: DePuy, Icotec, Stryker; Other. JLG: Consulting: Acuity, DePuy, FYR, Medtronic, NuVasive, Stryker; Royalties: Acuity, Medtronic, NuVasive; Stock Ownership: CingulaterTherapeutics (<1%); Trips/Travel: Baxter, Broadwater, MiMedx, Pacira Pharmaceuticals. MD: Consulting: Medtronic Sofamor Danek, NuVasive; Royalties: Medtronic, NuVasive. CHC, SDG, JRD, JLG, MD, LYC: (Grants to Institution): Alan L. & Jacqueline B. Stuart Spine Research, Scoliosis Research Society, Biom’up, Cerapedics, Inc, Empirical Spine Inc, Medtronic, National Spine Health Foundation, Stryker, (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Prospective multicenter database post-hoc analysis., Objectives: Opioids are frequently prescribed for painful spinal conditions to provide pain relief and to allow for functional improvement, both before and after spine surgery. Amidst a current opioid epidemic, it is important for providers to understand the impact of opioid use and its relationship with patient-reported outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pre-/postoperative opioid consumption surrounding ASD and assess patient-reported pain outcomes in older patients undergoing surgery for spinal deformity., Methods: Patients ≥60 years of age from 12 international centers undergoing spinal fusion of at least 5 levels and a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Patient-reported outcome scores were collected using the Numeric Rating Scale for back and leg pain (NRS-B; NRS-L) at baseline and at 2 years following surgery. Opioid use, defined based on a specific question on case report forms and question 11 from the SRS-22r questionnaire, was assessed at baseline and at 2-year follow-up., Result: Of the 219 patients who met inclusion criteria, 179 (81.7%) had 2-year data on opioid use. The percentages of patients reporting opioid use at baseline (n = 75, 34.2%) and 2 years after surgery (n = 55, 30.7%) were similar ( P = .23). However, at last follow-up 39% of baseline opioid users (Opi) were no longer taking opioids, while 14% of initial non-users (No-Opi) reported opioid use. Regional pre- and postoperative opioid use was 5.8% and 7.7% in the Asian population, 58.3% and 53.1% in the European, and 50.5% and 40.2% in North American patients, respectively. Baseline opioid users reported more preoperative back pain than the No-Opi group (7.0 vs 5.7, P = .001), while NRS-Leg pain scores were comparable (4.8 vs 4, P = .159). Similarly, at last follow-up, patients in the Opi group had greater NRS-B scores than Non-Opi patients (3.2 vs 2.3, P = .012), but no differences in NRS-Leg pain scores (2.2 vs 2.4, P = .632) were observed., Conclusions: In this study, almost one-third of surgical ASD patients were consuming opioids both pre- and postoperatively world-wide. There were marked international variations, with patients from Asia having a much lower usage rate, suggesting a cultural influence. Despite both opioid users and nonusers benefitting from surgery, preoperative opioid use was strongly associated with significantly more back pain at baseline that persisted at 2-year follow up, as well as persistent postoperative opioid needs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background Context: Among adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients, heterogeneity in patient pathology, surgical expectations, baseline impairments, and frailty complicates comparisons in clinical outcomes and research. This study aims to qualitatively segment ASD patients using machine learning-based clustering on a large, multicenter, prospectively gathered ASD cohort., Purpose: To qualitatively segment adult spinal deformity patients using machine learning-based clustering on a large, multicenter, prospectively gathered cohort., Study Design/setting: Machine learning algorithm using patients from a prospective multicenter study and a validation cohort from a retrospective single center, single surgeon cohort with complete 2-year follow up., Patient Sample: About 805 ASD patients; 563 patients from a prospective multicenter study and 242 from a single center to be used as a validation cohort., Outcome Measures: To validate and extend the Ames-ISSG/ESSG classification using machine learning-based clustering analysis on a large, complex, multicenter, prospectively gathered ASD cohort., Methods: We analyzed a training cohort of 563 ASD patients from a prospective multicenter study and a validation cohort of 242 ASD patients from a retrospective single center/surgeon cohort with complete two-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinical/radiographic follow-up. Using k-means clustering, a machine learning algorithm, we clustered patients based on baseline PROs, Edmonton frailty, age, surgical history, and overall health. Baseline differences in clusters identified using the training cohort were assessed using Chi-Squared and ANOVA with pairwise comparisons. To evaluate the classification system's ability to discern postoperative trajectories, a second machine learning algorithm assigned the single-center/surgeon patients to the same 4 clusters, and we compared the clusters' two-year PROs and clinical outcomes., Results: K-means clustering revealed four distinct phenotypes from the multicenter training cohort based on age, frailty, and mental health: Old/Frail/Content (OFC, 27.7%), Old/Frail/Distressed (OFD, 33.2%), Old/Resilient/Content (ORC, 27.2%), and Young/Resilient/Content (YRC, 11.9%). OFC and OFD clusters had the highest frailty scores (OFC: 3.76, OFD: 4.72) and a higher proportion of patients with prior thoracolumbar fusion (OFC: 47.4%, OFD: 49.2%). ORC and YRC clusters exhibited lower frailty scores and fewest patients with prior thoracolumbar procedures (ORC: 2.10, 36.6%; YRC: 0.84, 19.4%). OFC had 69.9% of patients with global sagittal deformity and the highest T1PA (29.0), while YRC had 70.2% exhibiting coronal deformity, the highest mean coronal Cobb Angle (54.0), and the lowest T1PA (11.9). OFD and ORC had similar alignment phenotypes with intermediate values for Coronal Cobb Angle (OFD: 33.7; ORC: 40.0) and T1PA (OFD: 24.9; ORC: 24.6) between OFC (worst sagittal alignment) and YRC (worst coronal alignment). In the single surgeon validation cohort, the OFC cluster experienced the greatest increase in SRS Function scores (1.34 points, 95%CI 1.01-1.67) compared to OFD (0.5 points, 95%CI 0.245-0.755), ORC (0.7 points, 95%CI 0.415-0.985), and YRC (0.24 points, 95%CI -0.024-0.504) clusters. OFD cluster patients improved the least over 2 years. Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the OFD cohort had significantly worse reoperation outcomes compared to other clusters (HR: 3.303, 95%CI: 1.085-8.390)., Conclusion: Machine-learning clustering found four different ASD patient qualitative phenotypes, defined by their age, frailty, physical functioning, and mental health upon presentation, which primarily determines their ability to improve their PROs following surgery. This reaffirms that these qualitative measures must be assessed in addition to the radiographic variables when counseling ASD patients regarding their expected surgical outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective single-center study using prospectively collected data., Objective: To describe the incidence of and identify risk factors for intraoperative screw malposition secondary to skive or shift during robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory (RA-CBT) insertion., Summary of Background Data: RA-CBT screw malposition occurs through 2 distinct modes, skive or shift. Skive occurs when a downward force applied to the cannula, drill, tap, or screw, causes the instrument to deflect relative to its bony landmark. Shift is a change in the position of the RA system relative to the patient after registration., Patients and Methods: A consecutive series of patients older than 18 years who underwent RA-CBT screw placement between January 2019 and July 2022 were enrolled. Baseline demographic and surgical data, Hounsfield Units (HUs) at L1, and vertebral shape related to screw planning were collected. Skive or shift was recorded in the operating room on a data collection form., Results: Of 1344 CBT screws in 256 patients, malposition was recognized intraoperatively in 33 screws (2.4%) in 27 patients (10.5%); 19 through skive in 17 and 14 through shift in 10 patients. These patients had higher body mass index than patients without malposition (33.0 vs. 30.5 kg/m 2 , P = 0.037). Patients with skive had higher HU (178.2 vs . 145.2, P = 0.035), compared with patients with shift (139.2 vs . 145.2, P = 0.935) and patients without screw malposition. More than half of the screw malposition was observed at the upper instrumented vertebra. At the upper instrumented vertebra, if the screw's overlap to the bone surface at the insertion point was decreased, skive was more likely (57% vs . 87%, P < 0.001). No patients were returned to the operating room for screw revision., Conclusions: Intraoperative screw malposition occurred in 2.4% of RA-CBT. High body mass index was associated with screw malposition, regardless of etiology. Skive was associated with high HU and decreased screw overlap to the bone surface at the insertion point., Competing Interests: J.L.G receives consulting fees from Depuy, Medtronic, NuVasive, K2M/Stryker; royalties from Acuity, Medtronic on robotic specific projects, NuVasive. S.D.G. receives consulting fees from Depuy, Medtronic and K2M/Stryker. S.D.G., M.E.B., C.L.D., L.Y.C., B.H., and J.L.G.—institution receives funding from Alan L. and Jacqueline B. Stuart Spine Research Foundation, Cerapedics, Biom’Up, Empirical Spine, Scoliosis Research Society, Stryker, TSRH, Medtronic. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 (β-coefficient=-0.206). Knee and hip osteoarthritis contributed to greater knee flexion (β-coefficients=0.215, 0.101; respectively). For pelvic shift, only hip osteoarthritis significantly contributed to the model (β-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., Competing Interests: The International Spine Study Group reports the following: grants to the foundation from Medtronic, Globus, Stryker, SI Bone, Carlsmed. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review., Objectives: To determine if change in position of upper instrumented vertebral (UIV) screw between intraoperative prone and immediate postoperative standing radiographs is a predictor for proximal junctional kyphosis or failure (PJK/PJF)., Summary of Background Data: Cranially directed UIV screws on post-operative radiographs have been found to be associated with PJK. Change in the screw position between intraoperative and immediate postoperative radiographs has not been studied., Methods: Patients with posterior fusion ≥3 levels and UIV at or distal to T8, and minimum 2-year follow-up were identified from a single center database. Primary outcomes were radiographic PJK/PJF or revision for PJK/PJF. Demographic, surgical and radiographic variables, including intraoperative screw-vertebra (S-V) angle, change in S-V angle, direction of UIV screw (cranial-neutral-caudal) and rod-vertebra (R-V) angle were collected., Results: 143 cases from 110 patients were included with a mean age of 62.9 years and a follow-up of 3.5 years. 54 (38%) cases developed PJK/PJF, of whom 30 required a revision. Mean S-V angle was -0.9°±5.5° intraoperative and -2.8°±5.5° postoperative. The group with PJK/PJF had a mean S-V angle change of -2.5°±2.4 while the rest had a change of -1.0°±1.6 (P=0.010). When the change in S-V angle was <5°, 33% developed PJK, this increased to 80% when it was ≥5° (P=0.001). Revision for PJK/PJF increased from 16% to 60% when S-V angle changed ≥5° (P=0.001). Regression analysis showed S-V angle change as a significant risk factor for PJK/PJF (P=0.047, OR=1.58) and for revision due to PJK/PJF (P=0.009, OR=2.21)., Conclusions: Change in the S-V angle from intraop prone to immediate postop standing radiograph is a strong predictor for PJK/PJF and for revision. For each degree of S-V angle change, odds of revision for PJK/PJF increases by 2.2x. A change of 5° should alert the surgeon to the likely development of PJK/PJF requiring revision., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Workflow for cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws includes tapping line-to-line or under tapping by 1 mm. We describe a non-tapping, two-step workflow for CBT screw placement, and compare the safety profile and time savings to the Tap (three-step) workflow. Patients undergoing robotic assisted 1-3 level posterior fusion with CBT screws for degenerative conditions were identified and separated into either a No-Tap or Tap workflow. Number of total screws, screw-related complications, estimated blood loss, operative time, robotic time, and return to the operating room were collected and analyzed. There were 91 cases (458 screws) in the No-Tap and 88 cases (466 screws) in the Tap groups, with no difference in demographics, revision status, ASA grade, approach, number of levels fused or diagnosis between cohorts. Total robotic time was lower in the No-Tap (26.7 min) versus the Tap group (30.3 min, p = 0.053). There was no difference in the number of malpositioned screws identified intraoperatively (10 vs 6, p = 0.427), screws converted to freehand (3 vs 3, p = 0.699), or screws abandoned (3 vs 2, p = 1.000). No pedicle/pars fracture or fixation failure was seen in the No-Tap cohort and one in the Tap cohort (p = 1.00). No patients in either cohort were returned to OR for malpositioned screws. This study showed that the No-Tap screw insertion workflow for robot-assisted CBT reduces robotic time without increasing complications., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

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.

Objective: We describe the incidence of, and identify the risk factors for, a medial breach of the pedicle wall during robotic-assisted cortical bone trajectory (RA-CBT) screw insertion., Methods: We analyzed a consecutive series of adult patients who underwent RA-CBT screw placement from January 2019 to July 2022. To assess the pedicle wall medial breach, postoperative computed tomography (CT) images were analyzed. Patient demographic data and screw data were compared between patients with and without a medial breach. The Hounsfield units (HUs) on the L1 midvertebral axial CT scan was used to evaluate bone quality., Results: Of 784 CBT screws in 145 patients, 30 (3.8%) had a medial breach in 23 patients (15.9%). One screw was grade 2, and the others were grade 1. Patients with a medial breach had a lower HU value compared with the patients without a medial breach (123.3 vs. 150.5; P = 0.027). A medial breach was more common in the right than left side (5.5% vs. 2.0%; P = 0.014). More than one half of the screws with a medial breach were found in the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) compared with the middle construct or lowest instrumented vertebra (6.7% vs. 1.3% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.003). Binary logistic regression showed that low HU values, right-sided screw placement, and UIV were associated with a medial breach. No patients returned to the operating room for screw malposition. No differences were found in the clinical outcomes between patients with and without a medial breach., Conclusions: The incidence of pedicle wall medial breach was 3.8% of RA-CBT screws in the postoperative CT images. A low HU value measured in the L1 axial image, right-sided screw placement, and UIV were associated with an increased risk of medial breach for RA-CBT screw placement., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: T.S.P.— Altus: IP royalties Globus; Medical: Paid consultant; Medtronic: Paid consultant; Nuvasive: Paid consultant. G.M.M.—Nuvasive: IP royalties: Paid consultant; Seaspine: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Stryker: IP royalties; Viseon: Paid consultant. J.S.S.—Carlsmed: Paid consultant; Cerapedics: Paid consultant; DePuy: Research support; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant, Research support; Zimmer: IP royalties, Paid consultant. J.G.—Acuity: IP royalties, Paid consultant; Expanding Innovations: Paid consultant; Medtronic: Board or committee member, IP royalties, Paid consultant, Paid presenter, and Research support; Nuvasive: IP royalties and Paid consultant; Stryker: Paid consultant. A.H.D.—EOS: Paid consultant; Medtronic: IP royalties and Paid consultant; Orthofix, Inc.: Paid consultant and Research support; Spineart: IP royalties and Paid consultant. E.O.K.—AO: Paid consultant; DePuy: Paid consultant; Medtronic: Paid consultant; Stryker: Paid consultant. C.A.—Biomet Spine: IP royalties; DePuy: IP royalties, Paid consultant, and Research support; K2M: IP royalties and Paid consultant; Medicrea: IP royalties and Paid consultant; Next Orthosurgical: IP royalties; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Stryker: IP royalties. R.S.B.— allosource: Research support; Alphatec Spine: Paid consultant; K2 Medical: IP royalties and Paid consultant; Nuvasive: IP royalties and Research support; Stryker: IP royalties. C.I.S.—Globus Medical: Research support; Medtronic: IP royalties, Paid presenter or speaker, and Research support; Nuvasive: IP royalties, Paid consultant, Research support, and Stock or stock Options; Proprio: Paid consultant. F.J.S.—K2M: IP royalties; Mainstay Medical: Paid consultant; Medtronic: IP royalties; Nuvasive: Research support; See Spine LLC: Stock or stock Options; Zimmer: IP royalties and Paid consultant. V.L.—Alphatec Spine: Paid consultant; Globus Medical: Paid consultant; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Stryker: Paid presenter or speaker. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Sagittal alignment measured on standing radiography remains a fundamental component of surgical planning for adult spinal deformity (ASD). However, the relationship between classic sagittal alignment parameters and objective metrics, such as walking time (WT) and grip strength (GS), remains unknown. The objective of this work was to determine if ASD patients with worse baseline sagittal malalignment have worse objective physical metrics and if those metrics have a stronger relationship to patient-reported outcome metrics (PROMs) than standing alignment., Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review of a multicenter ASD cohort. ASD patients underwent baseline testing with the timed up-and-go 6-m walk test (seconds) and for GS (pounds). Baseline PROMs were surveyed, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22r, and Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) scores. Standard spinopelvic measurements were obtained (sagittal vertical axis [SVA], pelvic tilt [PT], and mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis [PI-LL], and SRS-Schwab ASD classification). Univariate and multivariable linear regression modeling was performed to interrogate associations between objective physical metrics, sagittal parameters, and PROMs., Results: In total, 494 patients were included, with mean ± SD age 61 ± 14 years, and 68% were female. Average WT was 11.2 ± 6.1 seconds and average GS was 56.6 ± 24.9 lbs. With increasing PT, PI-LL, and SVA quartiles, WT significantly increased (p < 0.05). SRS-Schwab type N patients demonstrated a significantly longer average WT (12.5 ± 6.2 seconds), and type T patients had a significantly shorter WT time (7.9 ± 2.7 seconds, p = 0.03). With increasing PT quartiles, GS significantly decreased (p < 0.05). SRS-Schwab type T patients had a significantly higher average GS (68.8 ± 27.8 lbs), and type L patients had a significantly lower average GS (51.6 ± 20.4 lbs, p = 0.03). In the frailty-adjusted multivariable linear regression analyses, WT was more strongly associated with PROMs than sagittal parameters. GS was more strongly associated with ODI and PROMIS Physical Function scores., Conclusions: The authors observed that increasing baseline sagittal malalignment is associated with slower WT, and possibly weaker GS, in ASD patients. WT has a stronger relationship to PROMs than standing alignment parameters. Objective physical metrics likely offer added value to standard spinopelvic measurements in ASD evaluation and surgical planning.

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.

Study Design: Prospective observational cohort., Objectives: To examine the cost-effectiveness of IntraOperative ElectroMyeloGraphy (IO-EMG) by evaluating how often an abnormal IO-EMG signal changed the surgeon's surgical plan, or replaced a pedicle screw either intra-operatively or as a second unplanned surgery., Methods: Patients undergoing instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion were monitored with intraoperative triggered EMG's. Pedicle screws were placed freehand from L1 to S1 by attending physicians and fellows. Concern for pedicle breach was a screw stimulation<10 mA., Results: There were 145 cases with a total of 725 pedicle screws placed. Mean age was 57.8 ± 14.2 yrs, OR time was 238 ± 95 minutes, EBL was 426.8 ± 354.3cc. Mean number of surgical levels fused was 2.7 ± 1.1. 686 (95%) screws stimulated at >10 mA and 39 (5%) screws stimulated at <10 mA. All 39 screws were removed and pedicles re-examined. Intraoperative screw repositioning was necessary in 8 of 145 cases (6%). No patient required a return to the OR for screw repositioning. As a worst case cost analysis, assuming the 8 patients requiring intraoperative screw positioning would have returned to the OR at a cost of $11,798 per readmission, the per patient cost is $651 which is less than the ION per patient cost of $750., Conclusions: Only 1% of the 725 lumbar pedicle screws placed in 8 of 145 cases required repositioning. Due to the infrequency of pedicle wall breaches and the cost of ION, the utility of this modality in straightforward lumbar fusions should be critically evaluated., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2023. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: P.G.P.: Allosource: Other financial or material support; Cervical Scoliosis Research Society: Research support; Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker; Medtronic: Paid consultant; Royal Biologics: Paid consultant; Spine: Editorial or governing board; SpineWave: Paid consultant; Terumo: Paid consultant; Zimmer: Paid presenter or speaker. V.L.: DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid presenter or speaker; European Spine Journal : Editorial or governing board; Globus Medical: Paid consultant; International Spine Study Group: Board or committee member; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; The Permanente Medical Group: Paid presenter or speaker. R.F.: Nemaris: Stock or stock options. H.J.K.: AAOS: Board or committee member; Alphatec Spine: Paid consultant; AO SPINE: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; HSS Journal , Asian Spine Journal : Editorial or governing board; ISSGF: Research support; K2M: IP royalties; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; Zimmer: IP royalties. A.H.D.: EOS: Paid consultant; Medicrea: Paid consultant; Medtronic Sofamor Danek: Paid consultant; Novabone: Paid consultant; Orthofix Inc.: Paid consultant; Research support; Southern Spine: IP royalties; Spineart: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Springer: Publishing royalties, financial or material support; Stryker: Paid consultant. J.L.G.: Acuity: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Alan L. & Jacqueline B. Stuart Spine Research: Research support; Cerapedics: Research support; Cingulate Therapeutics: Stock or stock Options; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid presenter or speaker; Global Spine Journal —Reviewer: Editorial or governing board; Intellirod Spine Inc.: Research support; K2M /Stryker: Board or committee member; MAZOR Surgical Technologies: Paid consultant; Medtronic: Board or committee member; Paid consultant; Research support; Norton Healthcare: Research support; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Pfizer: Research support; Scoliosis Research Society: Research support; Spine Deformity —Reviewer: Editorial or governing board; Stryker: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Texas Scottish Rite Hospital: Research support; The Spine Journal —Reviewer: Editorial or governing board. T.S.P.: Altus: IP royalties; Globus Medical: Paid consultant; Medicrea: Paid consultant; Medtronic: Paid consultant; Nuvasive: Paid consultant; Spine Align: Stock or stock Options; Stryker: Paid consultant; Torus Medical: Stock or stock Options. G.M.M.: Carlsmed: Paid consultant; ISSGF: Research support; K2M: IP royalties; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; SeaSpine: Paid consultant; Stryker: Paid consultant; Viseon: Paid consultant. R.K.E.: Aesculap/B.Braun: Paid consultant; Alphatec Spine: Stock or stock Options; Baxter: Paid consultant; Biedermann-Motech: Paid consultant; Carevature: Paid consultant; Stock or stock Options; Globus Medical: IP royalties; Invuity: Stock or stock Options; Medtronic: Paid consultant; Nocimed: Stock or stock Options; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support; Stock or stock Options; Radius: Paid presenter or speaker; San Diego Spine Foundation: Board or committee member; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; Seaspine: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Stock or stock Options; SI Bone: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Society of Lateral Access Surgery: Board or committee member; Spine Innovations: Stock or stock Options; Stryker: Paid consultant. K.H.: European Spine Journal : Editorial or governing board; Nuvasive: Research support. E.O.K.: AO Spine: Paid presenter or speaker; Research support; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid consultant; Medicrea: Paid consultant; Medtronic: Paid consultant; Stryker: Paid consultant. B.G.L.: ISSGF: Paid consultant. R.A.H.: American Orthopaedic Association: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; International Spine Study Group: Board or committee member; ISSLS Textbook of the Lumbar Spine: Editorial or governing board; Medtronic: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; Orthofix Inc.: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; SeaSpine: IP royalties; Spine Connect: Stock or stock Options; Western Ortho Assn: Board or committee member. D.C.B.: Bioventus: Research support; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support; Pfizer: Research support; Progenerative Medical: Stock or stock Options; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; Spine Deformity : Editorial or governing board. P.V.M.: AANS/CNS Spine Section and Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; American Association of Neurological Surgeons: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Congress of Neurological Surgeons: Board or committee member; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Global Spine Journal : Editorial or governing board; Globus Medical: Paid consultant; International Spine Study Group: Research support; Neurosurgery: Editorial or governing board; NREF: Research support; Spinal Deformity: Editorial or governing board; Spinicity/ISD: Stock or stock Options; Springer: Publishing royalties, financial or material support; Stryker: Paid consultant; Taylor and Francis: Publishing royalties, financial or material support; Thieme: Publishing royalties, financial or material support; World Neurosurgery: Editorial or governing board. P.P.: AANS Spine Section: Board or committee member; Cerapedics: Research support; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Research support; Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; ISSG: Research support; Journal of Neurosurgery Spine : Editorial or governing board; Neurosurgery: Editorial or governing board; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; Nuvasive: Paid consultant; Operative Neurosurgery: Editorial or governing board; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; SI-Bone: Research support. F.J.S.: DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Research support; Globus Medical: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; K2M: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Medicrea: Paid consultant; Medtronic: Paid consultant; Medtronic Sofamor Danek: IP royalties; Paid presenter or speaker; Nuvasive: Research support; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; Spine Deformity : Editorial or governing board; Stryker: Research support; VP of International Spine Society Group (ISSG): Board or committee member; Zimmer: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker. D.C.: Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant. C.I.S.: AANS: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid presenter or speaker; Research support; Globus Medical: Research support; Medtronic: Other financial or material support; Paid consultant; Medtronic Sofamor Danek: IP royalties; Paid presenter or speaker; Research support; Neurosurgery RRC: Board or committee member; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Research support; Stock or stock Options; Proprio: Paid consultant; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; SI Bone: IP royalties; Spinal Deformity: Editorial or governing board; Spine: Editorial or governing board. R.S.B.: allosource: Paid consultant; Research support; Biomet: Research support; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid consultant; Research support; EOS: Research support; Globus Medical: Research support; k2 medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Research support; Medtronic Sofamor Danek: Research support; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Research support; Orthofix Inc.: Research support; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; Stryker: IP royalties; Paid presenter or speaker. C.P.A.: Biomet Spine: IP royalties; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support; Global Spine Analytics—Director: Other financial or material support; International Spine Study Group (ISSG): Research support; International Spine Study Group (ISSG)—Executive Committee: Other financial or material support; K2M: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Medicrea: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Medtronic: Paid consultant; Next Orthosurgical: IP royalties; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Operative Neurosurgery—Editorial Board: Other financial or material support; Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)—Grant Funding: Other financial or material support; Stryker: IP royalties; Titan Spine: Research support. J.S.S.: Alphatec Spine: Stock or stock Options; Carlsmed: Paid consultant; Cerapedics: Paid consultant; DePuy: Research support; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid consultant; Journal of Neurosurgery Spine : Editorial or governing board; Neurosurgery: Editorial or governing board; Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support; Operative Neurosurgery: Editorial or governing board; Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member; Spine Deformity : Editorial or governing board; Stryker: Paid consultant; Thieme: Publishing royalties, financial or material support; Zimmer: IP royalties; paid consultant. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements of bone density on CT are increasingly used for preoperative planning in spine surgery. Postmyelogram CT is another common preoperative diagnostic study. However, there is no current literature evaluating whether HU measurements on CT are affected by the presence of myelography dye. The purpose of the current study was to determine if the presence of myelography dye affects HU measurements of bone density in CT studies., Methods: Twenty-nine preoperative spine surgery patients who underwent both standard and postmyelography CT performed within 6 months of each other were identified. HU measurements were obtained from an elliptical region of interest using the available software on a standard PACS. Measurements were obtained on the axial cut at the midvertebral body on all lumbar vertebrae on three separate occasions and an average value was calculated for comparative analysis. A 6-week gap was used between measurements of the CT scans and the CT myelograms to diminish bias., Results: The mean age of the cohort was 69 years and the average BMI was 32 kg/m2. Five patients were male and 24 were female. Six of the patients had instrumentation placed prior to the initial CT scan. The average HU measurements for CT levels L1-5 were 165, 171, 145, 154, and 225, respectively, whereas HU measurements for CT myelography of levels L1-5 were 168, 177, 148, 170, and 239, respectively. Strong correlations were noted between the HU measured on CT and CT myelography for L1 (r2 = 0.951), L2 (r2 = 0.966), L4 (r2 = 0.820), and L5 (r2 = 0.900), and moderate for L3 (r2 = 0.668)., Conclusions: The presence of myelography dye had no clear effect on CT HU measurements of bone density. The results of this study support the use of CT myelograms for bone density assessment in the absence of standard CT images.

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.

Study Design: Propensity-matched cohort., Objective: The aim of this study was to determine if opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) reduces in-hospital and 1-year postoperative opioid consumption., Summary of Background Data: The recent opioid crisis highlights the need to reduce opioid exposure. We developed an OSA protocol for lumbar spinal fusion surgery to mitigate opioid exposure., Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions over one to four levels were identified. Patients taking opioids preoperatively were excluded. OSA patients were propensity-matched to non-OSA patients based on age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, and revision versus primary procedure. Standard demographic and surgical data, daily in-hospital opioid consumption, and opioid prescriptions 1 year after surgery were compared., Results: Of 296 OSA patients meeting inclusion criteria, 172 were propensity-matched to non-OSA patients. Demographics were similar between cohorts (OSA: 77 males, mean age=57.69 yr; non-OSA: 67 males, mean age=58.94 yr). OSA patients had lower blood loss (326 mL vs. 399 mL, P =0.014), surgical time (201 vs. 233 min, P <0.001) emergence to extubation time (9.1 vs. 14.2 min, P< 0.001), and recovery room time (119 vs. 140 min, P =0.0.012) compared with non-OSA patients. Fewer OSA patients required nonhome discharge (18 vs. 41, P =0.001) compared with the non-OSA cohort, but no difference in length of stay (90.3 vs. 98.5 h, P =0.204). Daily opioid consumption was lower in the OSA versus the non-OSA cohort from postoperative day 2 (223 vs. 185 morphine milligram equivalents, P =0.017) and maintained each day with lower total consumption (293 vs. 225 morphine milligram equivalents, P =0.003) throughout postoperative day 4. The number of patients with active opioid prescriptions at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative was statistically fewer in the OSA compared with the non-OSA patients., Conclusions: OSA for lumbar spinal fusion surgery decreases in-hospital and 1-year postoperative opioid consumption. The minimal use of opioids may also lead to shorter emergence to extubation times, shorter recovery room stays, and fewer discharges to nonhome facilities., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Circumferential lumbar fusions (cLFs) are becoming more common with increasing and more minimally invasive anterior access techniques. Staging allows reassessment of indirect decompression and alignment prior to the posterior approach, and optimization of OR time management. Safety of staging has been well documented in deformity surgery but has yet to be delineated in less extensive, degenerative cLFs., Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare perioperative complications and outcomes between staged versus single-anesthetic circumferential fusions in the lumbar spine., Study Design: Propensity-matched comparative observational cohort., Patient Sample: Patients who underwent cLFs for lumbar degenerative disease., Outcome Measures: In-hospital, 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year complications., Methods: From 123 patients undergoing single-anesthetic and 154 patients undergoing staged cLF, 95 patients in each group were propensity-matched based on age, sex, BMI, ASA score, smoking, revision, and number of levels. We compared perioperative, 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year complications between the two cohorts., Results: Mean days between stages was 1.58. Single-anesthetic cLF had longer total surgery time (304 vs 240 minutes, p<.001) but shorter total PACU total time (133 vs 196 minutes, p<.001). However, there was no difference in total anesthesia time (368 vs 374 minutes, p=.661) and total EBL (357 vs 320cc, p=.313). Intraoperative complications were nine incidental durotomies in the single-anesthetic and one iliac vein injury in the staged group (9% vs 1%, p=.018). There was no difference of in-hospital (38 vs 31, p=.291), 30-day (16 vs 23, p=.281), 90-day (10 vs 15, p=.391), 1-year complications (9 vs 12, p=.644), and overall cumulative 1-year complications (54 vs 56, p=.883) between the two cohorts., Conclusions: There is a decrease in total surgical time and intraoperative complications during staged compared with single-anesthetic cLF with no difference in in-hospital, 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year complications between approaches., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interests One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design/setting: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: Assess the extent to which defined risk factors of adverse events are drivers of cost-utility in spinal deformity (ASD) surgery., Methods: ASD patients with 2-year (2Y) data were included. Tertiles were used to define high degrees of frailty, sagittal deformity, blood loss, and surgical time. Cost was calculated using the Pearl Diver registry and cost-utility at 2Y was compared between cohorts based on the number of risk factors present. Statistically significant differences in cost-utility by number of baseline risk factors were determined using ANOVA, followed by a generalized linear model, adjusting for clinical site and surgeon, to assess the effects of increasing risk score on overall cost-utility., Results: By 2 years, 31% experienced a major complication and 23% underwent reoperation. Patients with ≤2 risk factors had significantly less major complications. Patients with 2 risk factors improved the most from baseline to 2Y in ODI. Average cost increased by $8234 per risk factor (R 2 = .981). Cost-per-QALY at 2Y increased by $122,650 per risk factor (R 2 = .794). Adjusted generalized linear model demonstrated a significant trend between increasing risk score and increasing cost-utility (r 2 = .408, P < .001)., Conclusions: The number of defined patient-specific and surgical risk factors, especially those with greater than two, were associated with increased index surgical costs and diminished cost-utility. Efforts to optimize patient physiology and minimize surgical risk would likely reduce healthcare expenditures and improve the overall cost-utility profile for ASD interventions. Level of evidence: III., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Peter Gust Passias, MDAllosource: Other financial or material support Cervical Scoliosis Research Society: Research support Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker Medtronic: Paid consultant Royal Biologics: Paid consultant Spine: Editorial or governing board SpineWave: Paid consultant Terumo: Paid consultant Zimmer: Paid presenter or speaker. Virginie Lafage, PhD DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid presenter or speaker European Spine Journal: Editorial or governing board Globus Medical: Paid consultant International Spine Study Group: Board or committee member Nuvasive: IP royalties Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member The Permanente Medical Group: Paid presenter or speaker. Ferran Pellise, MDAOSpine Deformity Knowledge Forum: Board or committee member DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Research support European Spine Journal: Editorial or governing board EuroSpine, The Spine Society of Europe: Board or committee member Medtronic: Paid consultant; Research support Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member Spanish Spine Society, GEER: Board or committee member Stryker: Paid consultant. Renaud Lafage, MS Nemaris: Stock or stock Options. Munish C Gupta, MD. AO Spine Faculty, travel: Board or committee memberDePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker European Spine Journal-Advisory Board: Editorial or governing board Global Spine Journal-Reviewer: Editorial or governing board Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant honorarium for faculty: Board or committee member Innomed: IP royalties Johnson & Johnson: Stock or stock Options Medtronic: Paid consultant Spine Deformity, Reviewer: Editorial or governing board SRS-Board of Directors: Board or committee member SRS-IMAST & Education committee: Board or committee member travel: Board or committee member Wolters Kluwer Health - Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Publishing royalties, financial or material support. Michael Patrick Kelly, MD, MSc, AO Spine: Board or committee memberCervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member Spine: Editorial or governing board. Han Jo Kim, MDAAOS: Board or committee member Alphatec Spine: Paid consultant AO SPINE: Board or committee member Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member HSS Journal, Asian Spine Journal: Editorial or governing board ISSGF: Research support K2M: IP royalties Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member Zimmer: IP royalties. Khaled M Kebaish, MDDePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Research support Orthofix, Inc.: IP royalties; Paid consultant Orthofix, Inc., K2 medical Inc: Paid presenter or speaker Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member Stryker: IP royalties. Alan H Daniels, MDEOS: Paid consultant Medicrea: Paid consultant Medtronic Sofamor Danek: Paid consultant Novabone: Paid consultant Orthofix, Inc.: Paid consultant; Research support Southern Spine: IP royalties Spineart: IP royalties; Paid consultant Springer: Publishing royalties, financial or material support Stryker: Paid consultant. Andrew J Schoenfeld, MDAAOS: Board or committee member Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American: Editorial or governing board North American Spine Society: Board or committee member Spine: Editorial or governing board Springer: Publishing royalties, financial or material support Wolters Kluwer Health - Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Publishing royalties, financial or material support. Jeffrey Gum, MDAcuity: IP royalties; Paid consultant Alan L. & Jacqueline B. Stuart Spine Research: Research support Cerapedics: Research support Cingulate Therapeutics: Stock or stock Options DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid presenter or speaker Global Spine Journal - Reviewer: Editorial or governing board Intellirod Spine Inc.: Research support K2M /Stryker: Board or committee member MAZOR Surgical Technologies: Paid consultant Medtronic: Board or committee member; Paid consultant; Research support Norton Healthcare: Research support Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant Pfizer: Research support Scoliosis Research Society: Research support Spine Deformity - Reviewer: Editorial or governing board Stryker: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker Texas Scottish Rite Hospital: Research support The Spine Journal - Reviewer: Editorial or governing board. Themistocles Stavros Protopsaltis, MDAltus: IP royalties Globus Medical: Paid consultant Medicrea: Paid consultant Medtronic: Paid consultant Nuvasive: Paid consultant Spine Align: Stock or stock Options Stryker: Paid consultant Torus Medical: Stock or stock Options. Ibrahim ObeidAlphatec Spine: IP royalties; Paid consultant Clariance: IP royalties DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Research support Medtronic Sofamor Danek: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker SPINEART: IP royalties. Gregory Michael Mundis Jr, MDCarlsmed: Paid consultant ISSGF: Research support K2M: IP royalties Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member SeaSpine: Paid consultant Stryker: Paid consultant Viseon: Paid consultant. Dean Chou, MDGlobus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant Orthofix, Inc.: Paid consultant. Ahmet Alanay, MDDePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Research support European Spine Journal: Editorial or governing board Globus Medical: Paid consultant Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American: Editorial or governing board Medtronic: Research support Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member ZimVie: IP royalties; Paid consultant. Eric O Klineberg, MDAO Spine: Paid presenter or speaker; Research support DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid consultant Medicrea: Paid consultant Medtronic: Paid consultant Stryker: Paid consultant. Breton G Line, BSISSGF: Paid consultant. Robert A Hart, MD, FAAOSAmerican Orthopaedic Association: Board or committee member Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker International Spine Study Group: Board or committee member ISSLS Textbook of the Lumbar Spine: Editorial or governing board Medtronic: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker North American Spine Society: Board or committee member Orthofix, Inc.: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member SeaSpine: IP royalties Spine Connect: Stock or stock Options Western Ortho Assn: Board or committee member. Douglas C Burton, MD, FAAOSBioventus: Research support DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support Pfizer: Research support Progenerative Medical: Stock or stock Options Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member Spine Deformity: Editorial or governing board. Frank J Schwab, MDDePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Research support Globus Medical: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker K2M: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker Medicrea: Paid consultant Medtronic: Paid consultant Medtronic Sofamor Danek: IP royalties; Paid presenter or speaker Nuvasive: Research support Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member spine deformity: Editorial or governing board Stryker: Research support VP of International Spine Society Group (ISSG): Board or committee member Zimmer: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker. Christopher I Shaffrey, MDAANS: Board or committee member Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid presenter or speaker; Research support Globus Medical: Research support Medtronic: Other financial or material support; Paid consultant Medtronic Sofamor Danek: IP royalties; Paid presenter or speaker; Research support Neurosurgery RRC: Board or committee member Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Research support; Stock or stock Options Proprio: Paid consultant Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member SI Bone: IP royalties Spinal Deformity: Editorial or governing board Spine: Editorial or governing board. Robert Shay Bess, MDallosource: Paid consultant; Research support Biomet: Research support DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid consultant; Research support EOS: Research support Globus Medical: Research support k2 medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Research support Medtronic Sofamor Danek: Research support North American Spine Society: Board or committee member Nuvasive: IP royalties; Research support Orthofix, Inc.: Research support Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member Stryker: IP royalties; Paid presenter or speaker. Christopher Ames, MD Biomet Spine: IP royalties DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support Global Spine Analytics - Director: Other financial or material support International Spine Study Group (ISSG): Research support International Spine Study Group (ISSG) - Executive Committee: Other financial or material support K2M: IP royalties; Paid consultant Medicrea: IP royalties; Paid consultant Medtronic: Paid consultant Next Orthosurgical: IP royalties Nuvasive: IP royalties Operative Neurosurgery - Editorial Board: Other financial or material support Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) - Grant Funding: Other financial or material support Stryker: IP royalties Titan Spine: Research support. Justin S Smith, MDAlphatec Spine: Stock or stock Options Carlsmed: Paid consultant Cerapedics: Paid consultant DePuy: Research support DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid consultant Journal of Neurosurgery Spine: Editorial or governing board Neurosurgery: Editorial or governing board Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support Operative Neurosurgery: Editorial or governing board Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member Spine Deformity: Editorial or governing board Stryker: Paid consultant Thieme: Publishing royalties, financial or material support Zimmer: IP royalties; Paid consultant.

Study Design: Multicenter comparative cohort., Objective: Studies have shown markedly higher rates of complications and all-cause mortality following surgery for adult cervical deformity (ACD) compared with adult thoracolumbar deformity (ATLD), though the reasons for these differences remain unclear. Our objectives were to compare baseline frailty, disability, and comorbidities between ACD and complex ATLD patients undergoing surgery., Methods: Two multicenter prospective adult spinal deformity registries were queried, one ATLD and one ACD. Baseline clinical and frailty measures were compared between the cohorts., Results: 616 patients were identified (107 ACD and 509 ATLD). These groups had similar mean age (64.6 vs 60.8 years, respectively, P = .07). ACD patients were less likely to be women (51.9% vs 69.5%, P < .001) and had greater Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.5 vs .9, P < .001) and ASA grade (2.7 vs 2.4, P < .001). ACD patients had worse VR-12 Physical Component Score (PCS, 25.7 vs 29.9, P < .001) and PROMIS Physical Function Score (33.3 vs 35.3, P = .031). All frailty measures were significantly worse for ACD patients, including hand dynamometer (44.6 vs 55.6 lbs, P < .001), CSHA Clinical Frailty Score (CFS, 4.0 vs 3.2, P < .001), and Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS, 5.15 vs 3.21, P < .001). Greater proportions of ACD patients were frail (22.9% vs 5.7%) or vulnerable (15.6% vs 10.9%) based on EFS ( P < .001)., Conclusions: Compared with ATLD patients, ACD patients had worse baseline characteristics on all measures assessed (comorbidities/disability/frailty). These differences may help account for greater risk of complications and all-cause mortality previously observed in ACD patients and facilitate strategies for better preoperative optimization., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background Context: Postoperative incisional concerns including nonpurulent drainage are relatively common following spine surgery. Evidence-based management protocols are lacking., Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine if prescribing empiric oral antibiotics for nonpurulent wound drainage is beneficial for the prevention of chronic infection or reoperation., Study Design: Retrospective chart review., Patient Sample: Patients calling the office with postsurgical wound concerns., Outcome Measures: Not applicable., Methods: In a large, multisurgeon, spine surgery practice, a review of the communications log showed that 298 patients called or messaged the office with a concern regarding postoperative nonpurulent wound drainage. Patients were prescribed empiric oral antibiotics based on surgeon preference. Patients who received empiric oral antibiotic treatment (AbxTx) were propensity matched to patients who did not (No AbxTx) based on sex, age, BMI, ASA grade, smoking status, prior spine surgery, anatomic location, and number of surgical levels. The number of patients requiring surgical intervention (debridement) and/or developing a chronic infection was determined., Results: Oral antibiotics were prescribed for 112 of the 298 (38%) patients with reports of nonpurulent drainage. Demographic and surgical characteristics of the two matched cohorts were similar. Although there were more patients in the AbxTx group who required surgical intervention (n=17, 17%) compared to the No AbxTx group (n=9, 9%), this difference was not statistically significant (p=.139). The intra-operative culture results showed no growth in 94% (16/17) of the AbxTx group vs 67% (6/9) of the No AbxTx group (p=.103). One patient in each group required a return to the operating room within the year after the initial surgical debridement for management of chronic infection., Conclusion: In this large series (n=298) of patients with nonpurulent wound drainage following spine surgery, 87% resolved without the need for surgical intervention. Empiric oral antibiotics did not reduce the need for surgical intervention or the development of a chronic infection. In addition to the added cost, potential adverse reactions, development of resistant organisms, and inaccurate labeling of surgical site infection; empiric oral antibiotics may lead to a negative intraoperative culture for those requiring surgical intervention impacting the ability to prescribe a specific antibiotic regimen., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review of a prospectively enrolled adult spinal deformity (ASD) database., Objective: To investigate what patient factors elevate the risk of sub-optimal outcomes after deformity correction., Background: Currently, it is unknown what factors predict a poor outcome after adult spinal deformity surgery, which may require increased preoperative consideration and counseling., Materials and Methods: Patients >18 yrs undergoing surgery for ASD(scoliosis≥20°, SVA≥5 cm, PT≥25°, or TK≥60°). An unsatisfactory outcome was defined by the following categories met at two years: (1) clinical: deteriorating in ODI at two years follow-up (2) complications/reoperation: having a reoperation and major complication were deemed high risk for poor outcomes postoperatively (HR). Multivariate analyses assessed predictive factors of HR patients in adult spinal deformity patients., Results: In all, 633 adult spinal deformity (59.9 yrs, 79% F, 27.7 kg/m 2, CCI: 1.74) were included. Baseline severe Schwab modifier incidence (++): 39.2% pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis, 28.8% sagittal vertical axis, 28.9% PT. Overall, 15.5% of patients deteriorated in ODI by two years, while 7.6% underwent reoperation and had a major complication. This categorized 11 (1.7%) as HR. HR were more comorbid in terms of arthritis (73%), heart disease (36%), and kidney disease (18%), P <0.001. Surgically, HR had greater EBL (4431ccs) and underwent more osteotomies (91%), specifically Ponte(36%) and Three Column Osteotomies(55%), which occurred more at L2(91%). HR underwent more PLIFs (45%) and had more blood transfusion units (2641ccs), all P <0.050. The multivariate regression determined a combination of a baseline Distress and Risk Assessment Method score in the 75th percentile, having arthritis and kidney disease, a baseline right lower extremity motor score ≤3, cSVA >65 mm, C2 slope >30.2°, CTPA >5.5° for an R2 value of 0.535 ( P <0.001)., Conclusions: When addressing adult spine deformities, poor outcomes tend to occur in severely comorbid patients with major baseline psychological distress scores, poor neurologic function, and concomitant cervical malalignment., Competing Interests: P.G.P.: Cerapedics: Other financial or material support; Cervical Scoliosis Research Society: Research support; Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker; Medtronic: Paid consultant; Royal Biologics: Paid consultant; Spine: Editorial or governing board; Spinevision: Other financial or material support; SpineWave: Paid consultant; Terumo: Paid consultant; The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The common goal of pediatric and adult spinal reconstructive procedures is to minimize long-term risk of disability, pain, and mortality. A common complication that has proved particularly problematic in the adult spinal deformity population and that has been an area of increased research and clinical focus is proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). The incidence of PJK ranges from 10%-40% based on criteria used to define the condition. Clinically, PJK complication is associated with increased pain, decreased self-image and Scoliosis Research Society scores, and severe neurological injuries affecting the patient's quality of life. Economically, direct costs of PJK complication-associated revision surgery ranges from $20,000 to $120,000, which places an enormous burden on patients, providers, and payers. To mitigate the risk of PJK occurrence postoperatively, it is paramount to develop consistent guidelines in defining and classifying PJK in addition to extensive preoperative planning and risk stratification that is patient specific. This article will provide an overview on the clinical and economic impact of PJK in pediatric and adult spine deformity patients with an emphasis on the role of patient factors and predictive analytics, challenges in developing a consistent PJK classification, and current treatment and prevention strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: J.G.: Consultant: Acuity, Depuy, Medtronic, Nuvasive, Stryker, FYR Medical; Royalties: Acuity, Medtronic, Nuvasive; Advisory Board: Medtronic, Stryker; Medical Board: National Spine Health Foundation; Stock: Cingulate Therapeutics, FYR Medical; Patent: Medtronic; Research: Stryker, Cerapedics, Inc., Biom’Up, empirical Spine, Pfizer, Texas Scottish Rite Hospital, Alan L. & Jacqueline B. Stuart Spine Research, Scoliosis Research Society, National Spine Health Foundation; Staff: Norton Health Care, Inc.; Honorarium: Baxter, Broadwater, NASS, Pacira Pharmaceuticals., (This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Copyright © 2023 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see http://ijssurgery.com.)

Background: Height gain following a surgical procedure for patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) is incompletely understood, and it is unknown if height gain correlates with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ASD surgery. Patients with baseline, 6-week, and subanalysis of 1-year postoperative full-body radiographic and PROM data were examined. Correlation analysis examined relationships between vertical height differences and PROMs. Regression analysis was utilized to preoperatively estimate T1-S1 and S1-ankle height changes., Results: This study included 198 patients (mean age, 57 years; 69% female); 147 patients (74%) gained height. Patients with height loss, compared with those who gained height, experienced greater increases in thoracolumbar kyphosis (2.81° compared with -7.37°; p < 0.001) and thoracic kyphosis (12.96° compared with 4.42°; p = 0.003). For patients with height gain, sagittal and coronal alignment improved from baseline to postoperatively: 25° to 21° for pelvic tilt (PT), 14° to 3° for pelvic incidence - lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), and 60 mm to 17 mm for sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (all p < 0.001). The full-body mean height gain was 7.6 cm, distributed as follows: sella turcica-C2, 2.9 mm; C2-T1, 2.8 mm; T1-S1 (trunk gain), 3.8 cm; and S1-ankle (lower-extremity gain), 3.3 cm (p < 0.001). T1-S1 height gain correlated with the thoracic Cobb angle correction and the maximum Cobb angle correction (p = 0.002). S1-ankle height gain correlated with the corrections in PT, PI-LL, and SVA (p < 0.001). T1-ankle height gain correlated with the corrections in PT (p < 0.001) and SVA (p = 0.03). Trunk height gain correlated with improved Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22r) Appearance scores (r = 0.20; p = 0.02). Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression scores correlated with S1-ankle height gain (r = -0.19; p = 0.03) and C2-T1 height gain (r = -0.18; p = 0.04). A 1° correction in a thoracic scoliosis Cobb angle corresponded to a 0.2-mm height gain, and a 1° correction in a thoracolumbar scoliosis Cobb angle resulted in a 0.25-mm height gain. A 1° improvement in PI-LL resulted in a 0.2-mm height gain., Conclusions: Most patients undergoing ASD surgery experienced height gain following deformity correction, with a mean full-body height gain of 7.6 cm. Height gain can be estimated preoperatively with predictive ratios, and height gain was correlated with improvements in reported SRS-22r appearance and PROMIS scores., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H620 )., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review., Objectives: The International Spine Study Group-AO (ISSG-AO) Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) Complication Classification System was developed to improve classification, reporting, and study of complications among patients undergoing ASD surgery. The ISSG-AO system classifies interventions to address complications by level of invasiveness: grade zero (none); grade 1, mild (e.g., medication change); grade 2, moderate (e.g., ICU admission); grade 3, severe (e.g., reoperation related to surgery of interest). To evaluate the efficacy of the ISSG-AO ASD Complication Classification System, we aimed to compare correlations between postoperative length of stay (LOS) and complication severity as classified by the ISSG-AO ASD and traditional major/minor complication classification systems., Methods: Patients age ≥18 in a multicenter ASD database who sustained in-hospital complications were identified. Complications were classified with the major/minor and ISSG-AO systems and correlated with LOS using an ensemble-based machine learning algorithm (conditional random forest) and a generalized linear mixed model., Results: 490 patients at 19 sites were included. 64.9% of complications were major, and 35.1% were minor. By ISSG-AO classification, 20.4%, 66.1%, 6.7%, and 6.7% were grades 0-3, respectively. ISSG-AO complication grading demonstrated significant correlation with LOS, whereas major/minor complication classification demonstrated inverse correlation with LOS. In conditional random forest analysis, ISSG-AO classification had the greatest relative importance when assessing correlations across multiple variables with LOS., Conclusions: The ISSG-AO system may help identify specific complications associated with prolonged LOS. Targeted interventions to avoid or reduce these complications may improve ASD surgical quality and resource utilization., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost utility of nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD)., Methods: Nonoperatively and operatively treated patients who met database criteria for ASD and in whom complete radiographic and health-related quality of life data at baseline and at 2 years were available were included. A cost analysis was completed on the PearlDiver database assessing the average cost of nonoperative treatment prior to surgical intervention based on previously published treatments (NSAIDs, narcotics, muscle relaxants, epidural steroid injections, physical therapy, and chiropractor). Utility data were calculated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) converted to SF-6D with published conversion methods. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) used a 3% discount rate to account for residual decline in life expectancy (78.7 years). Minor and major comorbidities and complications were assessed according to the CMS.gov manual's definitions. Successful nonoperative treatment was defined as a gain in the minimum clinically importance difference (MCID) in both ODI and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-pain scores, and failure was defined as a loss in MCID or conversion to operative treatment. Patients with baseline ODI ≤ 20 and continued ODI of ≤ 20 at 2 years were considered nonoperative successful maintenance. The average utilization of nonoperative treatment and cost were applied to the ASD cohort., Results: A total of 824 patients were included (mean age 58.24 years, 81% female, mean body mass index 27.2 kg/m2). Overall, 75.5% of patients were in the operative and 24.5% were in the nonoperative cohort. At baseline patients in the operative cohort were significantly older, had a greater body mass index, increased pelvic tilt, and increased pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (all p < 0.05). With respect to deformity, patients in the operative group had higher rates of severe (i.e., ++) sagittal deformity according to SRS-Schwab modifiers for pelvic tilt, sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (p < 0.05). At 2 years, patients in the operative cohort showed significantly increased rates of a gain in MCID for physical component summary of SF-36, ODI, and SRS-activity, SRS-pain, SRS-appearance, and SRS-mental scores. Cost analysis showed the average cost of nonoperative treatment 2 years prior to surgical intervention to be $2041. Overall, at 2 years patients in the nonoperative cohort had again in ODI of 0.36, did not show a gain in QALYs, and nonoperative treatment was determined to be cost-ineffective. However, a subset of patients in this cohort underwent successful maintenance treatment and had a decrease in ODI of 1.1 and a gain in utility of 0.006 at 2 years. If utility gained for this cohort was sustained to full life expectancy, patients' cost per QALY was $18,934 compared to a cost per QALY gained of $70,690.79 for posterior-only and $48,273.49 for combined approach in patients in the operative cohort., Conclusions: Patients with ASD undergoing operative treatment at baseline had greater sagittal deformity and greater improvement in health-related quality of life postoperatively compared to patients treated nonoperatively. Additionally, patients in the nonoperative cohort overall had an increase in ODI and did not show improvement in utility gained. Patients in the nonoperative cohort who had low disability and sagittal deformity underwent successful maintenance and cost-effective treatment.

Background: While reimbursement is centered on 90-day outcomes, many patients may still achieve optimal, long-term outcomes following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery despite transient short-term complications., Objective: Compare long-term clinical success and cost-utility between patients achieving optimal realignment and suboptimally aligned peers., Study Design/setting: Retrospective cohort study of a prospectively collected multicenter database., Methods: ASD patients with two-year (2Y) data included. Groups were propensity score matched (PSM) for age, frailty, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and baseline deformity. Optimal radiographic criteria are defined as meeting low deformity in all three (Scoliosis Research Society) SRS-Schwab parameters or being proportioned in Global Alignment and Proportionality (GAP). Cost-per-QALY was calculated for each time point. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) adjusting for baseline disability and deformity (pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL)) were used to determine the significance of surgical details, complications, clinical outcomes, and cost-utility., Results: A total of 930 patients were considered. Following PSM, 253 "optimal" (O) and 253 "not optimal" (NO) patients were assessed. The O group underwent more invasive procedures and had more levels fused. Analysis of complications by two years showed that the O group suffered less overall major (38% vs. 52%, p = 0.021) and major mechanical complications (12% vs. 22%, p = 0.002), and less reoperations (23% vs. 33%, p = 0.008). Adjusted analysis revealed O patients more often met MCID (minimal clinically important difference) in SF-36 PCS, SRS-22 Pain, and Appearance. Cost-utility-adjusted analysis determined that the O group generated better cost-utility by one year and maintained lower overall cost and costs per QALY (both p < 0.001) at two years., Conclusions: Fewer late complications (mechanical and reoperations) are seen in optimally aligned patients, leading to better long-term cost-utility overall. Therefore, the current focus on avoiding short-term complications may be counterproductive, as achieving optimal surgical correction is critical for long-term success.

Objective: The authors of this study sought to evaluate the predictive role of global sagittal alignment and upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) level in symptomatic proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) among patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD)., Methods: Data on ASD patients who had undergone fusion of ≥ 5 vertebrae from 2008 to 2018 and with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were obtained from a prospectively collected multicenter database and evaluated (n = 1312). Radiographs were obtained preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years postoperatively. The 22-Item Scoliosis Research Society Patient Questionnaire Revised (SRS-22r) scores were collected preoperatively, 1 year postoperatively, and 2 years postoperatively. Symptomatic PJK was defined as a kyphotic increase > 20° in the Cobb angle from the UIV to the UIV+2. At 6 weeks postoperatively, sagittal parameters were evaluated and patients were categorized by global alignment and proportion (GAP) score/category and SRS-Schwab sagittal modifiers. Patients were stratified by UIV level: upper thoracic (UT) UIV ≥ T8 or lower thoracic (LT) UIV ≤ T9., Results: Patients who developed symptomatic PJK (n = 260) had worse 1-year postoperative SRS-22r mental health (3.70 vs 3.86) and total (3.56 vs 3.67) scores, as well as worse 2-year postoperative self-image (3.45 vs 3.65) and satisfaction (4.03 vs 4.22) scores (all p ≤ 0.04). In the whole study cohort, patients with PJK had less pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch (-0.24° vs 3.29°, p < 0.001) but no difference in their GAP score/category or SRS-Schwab sagittal modifiers compared with the patients without PJK. Regression showed a higher risk of PJK with a pelvic tilt (PT) grade ++ (OR 2.35) and less risk with a PI-LL grade ++ (OR 0.35; both p < 0.01). When specifically analyzing the LT UIV cohort, patients with PJK had a higher GAP score (5.66 vs 4.79), greater PT (23.02° vs 20.90°), and less PI-LL mismatch (1.61° vs 4.45°; all p ≤ 0.02). PJK patients were less likely to be proportioned postoperatively (17.6% vs 30.0%, p = 0.015), and regression demonstrated a greater PJK risk with severe disproportion (OR 1.98) and a PT grade ++ (OR 3.15) but less risk with a PI-LL grade ++ (OR 0.45; all p ≤ 0.01). When specifically evaluating the UT UIV cohort, the PJK patients had less PI-LL mismatch (-2.11° vs 1.45°) but no difference in their GAP score/category. Regression showed a greater PJK risk with a PT grade + (OR 1.58) and a decreased risk with a PI-LL grade ++ (OR 0.21; both p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Symptomatic PJK leads to worse patient-reported outcomes and is associated with less postoperative PI-LL mismatch and greater postoperative PT. A worse postoperative GAP score and disproportion are only predictive of symptomatic PJK in patients with an LT UIV.

Objective: The objective of this study was to identify the effect of baseline cervical deformity (CD) on proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD)., Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected, multicenter database comprising ASD patients enrolled at 13 participating centers from 2009 to 2018. Included were ASD patients aged > 18 years with concurrent CD (C2-7 kyphosis < -15°, T1S minus cervical lordosis > 35°, C2-7 sagittal vertical axis > 4 cm, chin-brow vertical angle > 25°, McGregor's slope > 20°, or C2-T1 kyphosis > 15° across any three vertebrae) who underwent surgery. Patients were grouped according to four deformity classification schemes: Ames and Passias CD modifiers, sagittal morphotypes as described by Kim et al., and the head versus trunk balance system proposed by Mizutani et al. Mean comparison tests and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the impact of these deformity classifications on PJK and PJF rates up to 3 years following surgery., Results: A total of 712 patients with concurrent ASD and CD met the inclusion criteria (mean age 61.7 years, 71% female, mean BMI 28.2 kg/m2, and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 1.90) and underwent surgery (mean number of levels fused 10.1, mean estimated blood loss 1542 mL, and mean operative time 365 minutes; 70% underwent osteotomy). By approach, 59% of the patients underwent a posterior-only approach and 41% underwent a combined approach. Overall, 277 patients (39.1%) had PJK by 1 year postoperatively, and an additional 189 patients (26.7%) developed PJK by 3 years postoperatively. Overall, 65 patients (9.2%) had PJF by 3 years postoperatively. Patients classified as having a cervicothoracic deformity morphotype had higher rates of early PJK than flat neck deformity and cervicothoracic deformity patients (p = 0.020). Compared with the head-balanced patients, trunk-balanced patients had higher rates of PJK and PJF (both p < 0.05). Examining Ames modifier severity showed that patients with moderate and severe deformity by the horizontal gaze modifier had higher rates of PJK (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In patients with concurrent cervical and thoracolumbar deformities undergoing isolated thoracolumbar correction, the use of CD classifications allows for preoperative assessment of the potential for PJK and PJF that may aid in determining the correction of extending fusion levels.

Objective: Multiple rods are utilized in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery to increase construct stiffness. However, the impact of multiple rods on proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) is not well established. This study aimed to investigate the impact of multiple rods on PJK incidence in ASD patients., Methods: ASD patients from a prospective multicenter database with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical and radiographic data were collected preoperatively, at 6 weeks postoperatively, at 6 months postoperatively, at 1 year postoperatively, and at every subsequent year postoperatively. PJK was defined as a kyphotic increase of > 10° in the Cobb angle from the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) to UIV+2 as compared with preoperative values. Demographic data, radiographic parameters, and PJK incidence were compared between the multirod and dual-rod patient cohorts. PJK-free survival analysis was performed using Cox regression to control for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, level of fusion, and radiographic parameters., Results: Overall, 307/1300 (23.62%) cases utilized multiple rods. Cases with multiple rods were more likely to be revisions (68.4% vs 46.5%, p < 0.001), to be posterior only (80.7% vs 61.5%, p < 0.001), involve more levels of fusion (mean 11.73 vs 10.60, p < 0.001), and include 3-column osteotomy (42.9% vs 17.1%, p < 0.001). Patients with multiple rods also had greater preoperative pelvic retroversion (mean pelvic tilt 27.95° vs 23.58°, p < 0.001), greater thoracolumbar junction kyphosis (-15.9° vs -11.9°, p = 0.001), and more severe sagittal malalignment (C7-S1 sagittal vertical axis 99.76 mm vs 62.23 mm, p < 0.001), all of which corrected postoperatively. Patients with multiple rods had similar incidence rates of PJK (58.6% vs 58.1%) and revision surgery (13.0% vs 17.7%). The PJK-free survival analysis demonstrated equivalent PJK-free survival durations among the patients with multiple rods (HR 0.889, 95% CI 0.745-1.062, p = 0.195) after controlling for demographic and radiographic parameters. Further stratification based on implant metal type demonstrated noninferior PJK incidence rates with multiple rods in the titanium (57.1% vs 54.6%, p = 0.858), cobalt chrome (60.5% vs 58.7%, p = 0.646), and stainless steel (20% vs 63.7%, p = 0.008) cohorts., Conclusions: Multirod constructs for ASD are most frequently utilized in revision, long-level reconstructions with 3-column osteotomy. The use of multiple rods in ASD surgery does not result in an increased incidence of PJK and is not affected by rod metal type.