Search

ObjectiveThe objective of the study is to investigate which neurologic complications affect clinical outcomes the most following cervical deformity (CD) surgery.MethodsCD patients (C2-C7 Cobb >10°, CL >10°, cSVA >4 cm or chin-brow vertical angle >25°) >18 years with follow-up surgical and health-related quality of life (HRQL) data were included. Descriptive analyses assessed demographics. Neurologic complications assessed were C5 motor deficit, central neurodeficit, nerve root motor deficits, nerve sensory deficits, radiculopathy, and spinal cord deficits. Neurologic complications were classified as major or minor, then: intraoperative, before discharge, before 30 days, before 90 days, and after 90 days. HRQL outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Integrated health state (IHS) for the neck disability index (NDI), EQ5D, and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) were assessed using all follow-up time points. A subanalysis assessed IHS outcomes for patients with 2Y follow-up.Results153 operative CD patients were included. Baseline characteristics: 61 years old, 63% female, body mass index 29.7, operative time 531.6 ± 275.5, estimated blood loss 924.2 ± 729.5, 49% posterior approach, 18% anterior approach, 33% combined. 18% of patients experienced a total of 28 neurologic complications in the postoperative period (15 major). There were 7 radiculopathy, 6 motor deficits, 6 sensory deficits, 5 C5 motor deficits, 2 central neurodeficits, and 2 spinal cord deficits. 11.2% of patients experienced neurologic complications before 30 days (7 major) and 15% before 90 days (12 major). 12% of neurocomplication patients went on to have revision surgery within 6 months and 18% within 2 years. Neurologic complication patients had worse mJOA IHS scores at 1Y but no significant differences between NDI and EQ5D (0.003 vs. 0.873, 0.458). When assessing individual complications, central neurologic deficits and spinal cord deficit patients had the worst outcomes at 1Y (2.6 and 1.8 times worse NDI scores, P = 0.04, no improvement in EQ5D, 8% decrease in EQ5D). Patients with sensory deficits had the best NDI and EQ5D outcomes at 1Y (31% decrease in NDI, 8% increase in EQ5D). In a subanalysis, neurologic patients trended toward worse NDI and mJOA IHS outcomes (P = 0.263, 0.163).Conclusions18% of patients undergoing CD surgery experienced a neurologic complication, with 15% within 3 months. Patients who experienced any neurologic complication had worse mJOA recovery kinetics by 1 year and trended toward worse recovery at 2 years. Of the neurologic complications, central neurologic deficits and spinal cord deficits were the most detrimental.

ObjectiveTo prioritize the cervical parameter targets for alignment.MethodsIncluded: cervical deformity (CD) patients (C2-7 Cobb angle > 10°, cervical lordosis > 10°, cervical sagittal vertical axis [cSVA] > 4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle > 25°) with full baseline (BL) and 1-year (1Y) radiographic parameters and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores; patients with cervical [C] or cervicothoracic [CT] Primary Driver Ames type. Patients with BL Ames classified as low CD for both parameters of cSVA ( < 4 cm) and T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL) ( < 15°) were excluded. Patients assessed: meeting minimum clinically important differences (MCID) for NDI ( < -15 ΔNDI). Ratios of correction were found for regional parameters categorized by primary Ames driver (C or CT). Decision tree analysis assessed cutoffs for differences associated with meeting NDI MCID at 1Y.ResultsSeventy-seven CD patients (mean age, 62.1 years; 64% female; body mass index, 28.8 kg/m2). Forty-one point six percent of patients met MCID for NDI. A backwards linear regression model including radiographic differences as predictors from BL to 1Y for meeting MCID for NDI demonstrated an R2 of 0.820 (p = 0.032) included TS-CL, cSVA, McGregor's slope (MGS), C2 sacral slope, C2-T3 angle, C2-T3 SVA, cervical lordosis. By primary Ames driver, 67.5% of patients were C, and 32.5% CT. Ratios of change in predictors for MCID NDI patients for C and CT were not significant between the 2 groups (p > 0.050). Decision tree analysis determined cutoffs for radiographic change, prioritizing in the following order: ≥ 42.5° C2-T3 angle, > 35.4° cervical lordosis, < -31.76° C2 slope, < -11.57-mm cSVA, < -2.16° MGS, > -30.8-mm C2-T3 SVA, and ≤ -33.6° TS-CL.ConclusionCertain ratios of correction of cervical parameters contribute to improving neck disability. Prioritizing these radiographic alignment parameters may help optimize patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing CD surgery.

IntroductionPatients with symptomatic cervical deformity (CD) requiring surgical correction often present with hyperkyphosis (HK), though patients with hyperlordotic curves may require surgery as well. Few studies have investigated differences in CD-corrective surgery with regards to HK and hyperlordosis (HL).Materials and methodsOperative CD patients (C2-C7 Cobb >10°, cervical lordosis [CL] >10°, cervical sagittal vertical axis [cSVA] >4 cm, chin-brow vertical angle >25°) with baseline (BL) and 1Y radiographic data. Patients were stratified based on BL C2-7 lordosis (CL) angle: those >1 standard deviation (SD) from the mean (-6.96° ±21.47°) were hyperlordotic (>14.51°) or hyperkyphotic (≤28.43°) depending on directionality. Patients within 1 SD were considered the control group.ResultsOne hundred and two surgical CD pts (61 years, 65%F, 30 kg/m2) with BL and 1Y radiographic data were included. Twenty pts met definitions for HK and 21 pts met definitions for HL. No differences in demographics or disability were noted. HK had higher estimated blood loss (EBL) with anterior approaches than HL but similar EBL with the posterior approach. Op-time did not differ between groups. Control, HL, and HK groups differed in BL TS-CL (36.6° vs. 22.5° vs. 60.7°, P < 0.001) and BL-sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (10.8 vs. 7.0 vs. -47.8 mm, P = 0.001). HL pts had less discectomies, less corpectomies, and similar osteotomy rates to HK. HL had × 3 revisions of HK and controls (28.6 vs. 10.0 vs. 9.2%, respectively, P = 0.046). At 1Y, HL pts had higher cSVA, and trended higher SVA and SS than HK. In terms of BL-upper cervical alignment, HK pts had higher McGregor's-slope (16.1° vs. -3.3°, P = 0.001) and C0-C2 Cobb (43.3° vs. 26.9°, P < 0.001), however postoperative differences in McGregor's slope and C0-C2 were not significant. HK drivers of deformity were primarily C (90%), whereas HL had primary computed tomography (38.1%), upper thoracic (23.8%), and C (14.3%) drivers.ConclusionsHyperlodotic patients trended higher revision rates with greater radiographic malalignment at 1Y postoperative, perhaps due to undercorrection compared to kyphotic etiologies.

IntroductionOsteotomies are commonly performed to correct sagittal malalignment in cervical deformity (CD). However, the risks and benefits of performing a major osteotomy for cervical deformity correction have been understudied. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the risks and benefits of performing a major osteotomy for CD correction.MethodsPatients stratified based on major osteotomy (MAJ) or minor (MIN). Independent t-tests and Chi-squared tests were used to assess differences between MAJ and MIN. A sub-analysis compared patients with flexible versus rigid CL.Results137 CD patients were included (62 years, 65% F). 19.0% CD patients underwent a MAJ osteotomy. After propensity score matching for cSVA, 52 patients were included. About 19.0% CD patients underwent a MAJ osteotomy. MAJ patients had more minor complications (P = 0.045), despite similar surgical outcomes as MIN. At 3M, MAJ and MIN patients had similar NDI, mJOA, and EQ5D scores, however by 1 year, MAJ patients reached MCID for NDI less than MIN patients (P = 0.003). MAJ patients with rigid deformities had higher rates of complications (79% vs. 29%, P = 0.056) and were less likely to show improvement in NDI at 1 year (0.95 vs. 0.54, P = 0.027). Both groups had similar sagittal realignment at 1 year (all P > 0.05).ConclusionsCervical deformity patients who underwent a major osteotomy had similar clinical outcomes at 3-months but worse outcomes at 1-year as compared to minor osteotomies, likely due to differences in baseline deformity. Patients with rigid deformities who underwent a major osteotomy had higher complication rates and worse clinical improvement despite similar realignment at 1 year.

BackgroundTo optimize quality of life in patients with cervical deformity (CD), there may be alignment targets to be prioritized.ObjectiveTo prioritize the cervical parameter targets for alignment.MethodsIncluded: CD patients (C2-C7 Cobb >10°°, C2-C7 lordosis [CL] >10°°, cSVA > 4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle >25°°) with full baseline (BL) and 1-year (1Y) radiographic parameters and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores; patients with cervical (C) or cervicothoracic (CT) Primary Driver Ames type. Patients with BL Ames classified as low CD for both parameters of cSVA ( 0.050). Decision tree analysis determined cut-offs for radiographic change, prioritizing in the following order: ≥42.5° C2-T3 angle, >35.4° CL, -30.8 mm C2-T3 SVA, and ≤-33.6° TS-CL.ConclusionsCertain ratios of correction of cervical parameters contribute to improving neck disability. Prioritizing these radiographic alignment parameters may help optimize patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing CD surgery.

BackgroundThe study aims to evaluate differences in alignment and clinical outcomes between surgical cervical deformity (CD) patients with a subaxial upper-most instrumented vertebra (UIV) and patients with a UIV at C2. Use of CD-corrective instrumentation in the subaxial cervical spine is considered risky due to narrow subaxial pedicles and vertebral artery anatomy. While C2 fixation provides increased stability, the literature lacks guidelines indicating extension of CD-corrective fusion from the subaxial spine to C2.MethodsIncluded: operative CD patients with baseline (BL) and 1-year postop (1Y) radiographic data, cervical UIV ≥ C2. Patients were grouped by UIV: C2 or subaxial (C3-C7) and propensity score matched (PSM) for BL cSVA. Mean comparison tests assessed differences in BL and 1Y patient-related, radiographic, and surgical data between UIV groups, and BL-1Y changes in alignment and clinical outcomes.ResultsFollowing PSM, 31 C2 UIV and 31 subaxial UIV patients undergoing CD-corrective surgery were included. Groups did not differ in BL comorbidity burden (P=0.175) or cSVA (P=0.401). C2 patients were older (64 vs. 58 yrs, P=0.010) and had longer fusions (9 vs. 6 levels, P=0.002). Overall, patients showed BL-1Y improvements in TS-CL (P0.05).ConclusionsC2 UIV patients showed similar cervical range of motion and baseline to 1-year functional outcomes as patients with a subaxial UIV. C2 UIV patients also showed greater baseline to 1-year horizontal gaze improvement and had complication profiles similar to subaxial UIV patients, demonstrating the radiographic benefit and minimal functional loss associated with extending fusion constructs to C2. In the treatment of adult cervical deformities, extension of the reconstruction construct to the axis may allow for certain clinical benefits with less morbidity than previously acknowledged.

Purpose.: Despite adequate correction, the pelvis may fail to readjust, deemed pelvic nonresponse (PNR). To assess alignment outcomes [PNR, proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), postoperative cervical deformity (CD)] following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery utilizing different realignment strategies. Materials and Methods.: ASD patients with two-year data were included. PNR defined as undercorrected in age-adjusted pelvic tilt (PT) at six weeks and maintained at two years. Patients classified by alignment utilities: (a) improvement in Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab sagittal vertical axis, (b) matching in age-adjusted pelvic incidence−lumbar lordosis, (c) matching in Roussouly, (d) aligning Global Alignment and Proportionality (GAP) score. Multivariable regression analyses, controlling for age, baseline deformity, and surgical factors, assessed rates of PNR, PJK, and CD development following realignment. Results.: A total of 686 patients met the inclusion criteria. Rates of postoperative PJK and CD were not significant in the PNR group (both P >0.15). PNR patients less often met substantial clinical benefit in Oswestry Disability Index by two years [odds ratio: 0.6 (0.4–0.98)]. Patients overcorrected in age-adjusted pelvic incidence−lumbar lordosis, matching Roussouly, or proportioned in GAP at six weeks had lower rates of PNR (all P <0.001). Incremental addition of classifications led to 0% occurrence of PNR, PJK, and CD. Stratifying by baseline PT severity, Low and moderate deformity demonstrated the least incidence of PNR (7.7%) when proportioning in GAP at six weeks, while severe PT benefited most from matching in Roussouly (all P <0.05). Conclusions.: Following ASD corrective surgery, 24.9% of patients showed residual pelvic malalignment. This occurrence was often accompanied by undercorrection of lumbopelvic mismatch and less improvement of pain. However, overcorrection in any strategy incurred higher rates of PJK. We recommend surgeons identify a middle ground using one, or more, of the available classifications to inform correction goals in this regard. Level of Evidence.: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple factors influence faculty instructional practices and strategies in engineering. Effective strategies for improving instructional practices are correlated to the belief of the individual faculty. While substantial research has been done on how faculty and their instructional practices can make a positive difference in student achievement, less research has been done on how faculty's mindset drives instructional practices. This study aims to fill this gap. This study sought to answer two research questions: (1) What is the continuous fixed through growth mindset of engineering faculty with respect to faculty demographics? (2) ls there a difference in self-reported instructional practice with respect to faculty mindset and faculty demographics? In Fall of 2019, we used an online survey to collect survey responses from 105 engineering faculty from 14 different engineering colleges at Carnegie classified as Doctoral/Pro fessional universities. The survey instrument included two scales with existing validity evidence: the Dweck Mindset (DMI) and the Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS). The analysis generated three key results: (1) engineering faculty in the sample did not score along the mindset spectrum, most fell in the middle of the spectrum and were categorized as incremental; (2) there was a statistically significant difference in engineering faculty mindset that varied by faculty demographics including gender, ranking, and tenure status; and (3) student-content engagement and student-student engagement were found to be the most discriminant teaching practices. Our study demonstrates strong correlation between the mindset of engineering faculty and instructional practices. as well as how that correlation varies by faculty demographics. Our results suggest faculty mindset is a malleable construct that can directly affect teaching practices leading to better teaching and learning in engineering. Furthermore, our study supports the implementation of training to ensure tenured faculty are comfortable with a growth mindset as well as the need to continue to increase the diversity of engineering faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]