Search

STUDY DESIGN: prospective, multicenter. OBJECTIVE: To determine if models for predicting outcome and complications in the setting of adult deformity surgery can be constructed. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A classification of adult spinal deformity has been established. The latter categorizes patients radiographically and ties to disability as well as most likely treatment approach. Classification by radiographs alone is insufficient to guide treatment and models for predicting outcome are necessary to establish algorithms. METHODS: This is a longitudinal study of adult patients with spinal deformity. All subjects were drawn from a prospective multicenter database. Baseline, 1-year and 2-year radiographic and health related quality of life measures were obtained (SRS, ODI, SF-12). Any peri- or postoperative complications were tabulated. Binary and logistic regressions were applied to create models of outcome and complications. RESULTS: Predictive models of reaching a minimal clinically important difference had an area under the ROC curve above 0.82 and correct classification from 75% to 81%. Development of a complication was correctly classified in 71% of cases. Patients most likely to reach threshold improvement through surgery: older, lower apex deformity, greater disability, higher deformity score by classification. Patients most likely to develop complications: high sagittal balance grade and fusion to sacrum. CONCLUSION: By applying the classification of adult deformity and considering baseline health status, models for predicting outcome can be established. Further work will refine these models and permit clinical validation. This effort will help establish reliable clinical models such that treatment algorithms can be established for the challenging patients suffering from adult spinal deformity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the impact of the Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) score components on patient outcomes in Adult Spine Deformity (ASD) surgery., Methods: Patients included underwent assessment via the GAP score and its individual components: pelvic version (GAP PV), lumbar lordosis (GAP LL), lumbar distribution index (GAP LDI) and spinopelvic component (GAP SP). Multivariable analyses assessed the association between alignment in these components and clinical outcomes in ASD patients., Results: 762 ASD patients met inclusion criteria. Alignment in GAP SP independently predicted meeting MCID for SR-22S and ODI and was associated with a lower likelihood of developing mechanical complications. Patients aligned in GAP SP were less likely to develop proximal junctional kyphosis (OR 0.42, 0.26-0.73, p = 0.01) and PJF (OR 0.3, 0.13-0.74, p = 0.01). Proportioned alignment in GAP SP with disproportioned alignment in GAP LDI contributed to an increased risk of PJK and PJF (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.95-6.82, p = 0.045). There was no significant association of GAP SP proportionality and GAP RPV (OR 1.1, 0.86-2.15, p = 0.253) or GAP LL (OR 1.34, 0.78-4.23, p = 0.673) disproportionality with outcomes. Disproportioned alignment in GAP SP but proportioned alignment in both GAP LL and GAP LDI was associated with decreased likelihood of PJK (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39-0.94, p = 0.02) and PJF (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.19-0.67, p = 0.001)., Conclusion: The spinopelvic component of the GAP score is the most significant independent predictor of clinical outcomes. Its interaction with the other components of the GAP score also aids assessment of the risk for mechanical complications., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

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.)

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.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Objective: To evaluate factors associated with the long-term durability of cost-effectiveness (CE) in ASD patients., Background: A substantial increase in costs associated with the surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) has given precedence to scrutinize the value and utility it provides., Methods: We included 327 operative ASD patients with five-year (5 yr) follow-up. Published methods were used to determine costs based on CMS.gov definitions and were based on the average DRG reimbursement rates. The utility was calculated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) utilizing the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) converted to Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D), with a 3% discount applied for its decline in life expectancy. The CE threshold of $150,000 was used for primary analysis., Results: Major and minor complication rates were 11% and 47%, respectively, with 26% undergoing reoperation by five years. The mean cost associated with surgery was $91,095±$47,003, with a utility gain of 0.091±0.086 at one years, QALY gained at 2 years of 0.171±0.183, and at five years of 0.42±0.43. The cost per QALY at two years was $414,885, which decreased to $142,058 at five years.With the threshold of $150,000 for CE, 19% met CE at two years and 56% at five years. In those in which revision was avoided, 87% met cumulative CE till life expectancy. Controlling analysis depicted higher baseline CCI and pelvic tilt (PT) to be the strongest predictors for not maintaining durable CE to five years [CCI OR: 1.821 (1.159-2.862), P =0.009] [PT OR: 1.079 (1.007-1.155), P =0.030]., Conclusions: Most patients achieved cost-effectiveness after four years postoperatively, with 56% meeting at five years postoperatively. When revision was avoided, 87% of patients met cumulative cost-effectiveness till life expectancy. Mechanical complications were predictive of failure to achieve cost-effectiveness at two years, while comorbidity burden and medical complications were at five years., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Secondary data analysis of the NIH sponsored study on Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis (ASLS)., Objectives: The purpose of this study is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing operative versus non-operative care for ASLS eight years after enrollment., Summary of Background Data: A prior cost-effectiveness analysis of the current cohort comparing operative to non-operative care at five years after enrollment showed and ICER of $44,033 in the As-Treated analysis and a ICER of $27,480 in the Intent-to-treat analysis., Methods: Data was collected every three months for the first two years, then every six months for the remainder of the study. Data included use of non-operative modalities, medications and employment status. Costs for index and revision surgeries and non-operative modalities were determined using Medicare Allowable rates. Medication costs were determined using the RedBook and indirect costs were calculated based on reported employment status and income. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) was determined using the SF6D., Results: There were 101 cases in the Operative (Op) and 103 in the Non-operative (Non-Op) group with complete eight year data. Thirty-eight patients (37%) in the Non-Op group had surgery from 3 to 72 months after enrollment. An As-Treated analysis including only cases who never had surgery (N=65) or cases with complete eight-year post-operative data (N=101) showed that operative treatment was favored with an ICER of $20,569 per QALY gained which is within Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) thresholds. An Intent-to-Treat analysis demonstrated greater QALY gains and lower cost in the Op group (ICER = $-13,911). However, Intent-to-Treat analysis is influenced by Non-Op patients who crossed over to operative treatment at variable times during follow-up., Conclusion: Operative treatment was more cost-effective than non-operative treatment for ASLS at eight-year follow-up. The ICER continued to improve as compared to the five-year values ($20,569 vs. $44,033)., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Multicentric retrospective study of prospectively collected data., Objective: Based on normative data from a cohort of asymptomatic volunteers, this study sought to determine the rate of abnormal values of proximal junctional angles (PJA) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery patients, and compare it with PJK rate., Summary of Background Data: Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) definition does not take the vertebral level into account., Methods: This study included 721 healthy volunteers and 824 ASD surgery patients with 2-year postoperative follow-up. Normative values for each disc and vertebral body between T1 and T12 were analyzed, then normative values for PJA at each thoracic level were defined in the volunteer cohort as the mean±2 standard deviations. PJA abnormal values at the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) were compared with Glattes' and Lovecchio's definitions for PJK in the ASD population at two years., Results: Mean age was 37.7±16.3 in the volunteer cohort, with 50.5% of females. Mean thoracic kyphosis (TK) was -50.9±10.8°. Corridors of normality included PJA greater than 20° between T3 and T12. Mean age was 60.5±14.0 years in the ASD cohort, with 77.2% of females. Mean baseline TK was -37.4±19.9°, with a significant increase after surgery (-15.6±15.3°, P<0.001). There was 46.2% of PJK according to Glattes' versus 8.7% according to Lovecchio's and 22.9% of kyphotic PJA compared to normative values (P<0.001)., Conclusion: This study provides normative values for segmental and regional alignment of thoracic spine, used to describe abnormal values of PJA for each level. Using level-adjusted PJA values allows a more precise assessment of abnormal proximal angles and question the definition for PJK., Level of Evidence: II., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare relatively to this study., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Previous work comparing ASD to a normative population demonstrated that a large proportion of lumbar lordosis is lost proximally (L1-L4). The current study expands on these findings by collectively investigating regional angles and spinal contours., Methods: 119 asymptomatic volunteers with full-body free-standing radiographs were used to identify age-and-PI models of each Vertebra Pelvic Angle (VPA) from L5 to T10. These formulas were then applied to a cohort of primary surgical ASD patients without coronal malalignment. Loss of lumbar lordosis (LL) was defined as the offset between age-and-PI normative value and pre-operative alignment. Spine shapes defined by VPAs were compared and analyzed using paired t-tests., Results: 362 ASD patients were identified (age = 64.4 ± 13, 57.1% females). Compared to their age-and-PI normative values, patients demonstrated a significant loss in LL of 17 ± 19° in the following distribution: 14.1% had "No loss" (mean = 0.1 ± 2.3), 22.9% with 10°-loss (mean = 9.9 ± 2.9), 22.1% with 20°-loss (mean = 20.0 ± 2.8), and 29.3% with 30°-loss (mean = 33.8 ± 6.0). "No loss" patients' spine was slightly posterior to the normative shape from L4 to T10 (VPA difference of 2°), while superimposed on the normative one from S1 to L2 and became anterior at L1 in the "10°-loss" group. As LL loss increased, ASD and normative shapes offset extended caudally to L3 for the "20°-loss" group and L4 for the "30°-loss" group., Conclusion: As LL loss increases, the difference between ASD and normative shapes first occurs proximally and then progresses incrementally caudally. Understanding spinal contour and LL loss location may be key to achieving sustainable correction by identifying optimal and personalized postoperative shapes., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Summary of Background Data: Yilgor et al developed the lumbar Lordosis Distribution Index to individualize the pelvic mismatch to each patient's pelvic incidence. The cervical lordosis distribution in relation to its apex has not been characterized., Objective: Tailor correction of cervical deformity by incorporating the cervical apex into a distribution index(CLDI) to maximize clinical outcomes while lowering rates of junctional failure., Study Design/setting: Retrospective cohort., Methods: CD patients with complete 2Y data were included. Optimal outcome is defined by no DJF, and meeting Virk et al Good Clinical Outcome Criteria:[Meeting 2 of 3: 1)an NDI<20 or meeting MCID, 2)mJOA>=14, 3)an NRS-Neck<=5 or improved by 2 or more points]. C2-T2 lordosis was divided into cranial (C2 to apex) and caudal (apex to T2) arches postoperatively. A cervical lordosis distribution index(CLDI) was developed by dividing the cranial lordotic arch(C2 to apex) by the total segment(C2-T2) and multiplying by 100. Cross-tabulations developed categories for CLDI producing the highest chi-square values for achieving Optimal Outcome at two years and outcomes were assessed by multivariable analysis controlling for significant confounders., Results: 84 CD patients were included. Cervical apex distribution postoperatively was: 1% C3, 42% C4, 30% C5, 27% C6. Mean cervical LDI was 117±138. Mean cranial lordosis was 23.2±12.5°. Using cross-tabulations, a CLDI between 70 and 90 was defined as 'Aligned'. Chi-square test revealed significant differences among CLDI categories for DJK, DJF, Good Clinical Outcome, and Optimal Outcome(all P<0.05). Patients aligned in CLDI were less likely to develop DJK(OR: 0.1, [0.01-0.88]), more like to achieve GCO (OR: 3.9, [1.2-13.2]) and Optimal Outcome (OR: 7.9, [2.1-29.3] at two years. Patients aligned in CLDI developed DJF at a rate of 0%., Conclusion: The cervical lordosis distribution index, classified through the cranial segment, takes each unique cervical apex into account and tailors correction to the patient in order to better achieve good clinical outcomes and minimize catastrophic complications following cervical deformity surgery., Level of Evidence: III., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Purpose: The impact of neuromuscular disorders such as multiple sclerosis (MS) on outcomes following long segment fusion is underreported. This study evaluates the impact of MS on two-year (2Y) postoperative complications and revisions following ≥ 4-level fusion for adult spinal deformity (ASD)., Methods: Patients undergoing ≥ 4-level fusion for ASD were identified from a statewide database. Patients with a baseline diagnosis of MS were also identified. Patients with infectious/traumatic/neoplastic indications were excluded. Subjects were 1:1 propensity score-matched (MS to no-MS) based on age, sex and race and compared for rates of 2Y postoperative complications and reoperations. Logistic regression models were utilized to determine risk factors for adverse outcomes at 2Y., Results: 86 patients were included overall (n = 43 per group). Age, sex, and race were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). MS patients incurred higher charges for their surgical visit ($125,906 vs. $84,006, p = 0.007) with similar LOS (8.1 vs. 5.3 days, p > 0.05). MS patients experienced comparable rates of overall medical complications (30.1% vs. 25.6%) and surgical complications (34.9% vs. 30.2%); p > 0.05. MS patients had similar rates of 2Y revisions (16.3% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.333). MS was not associated with medical, surgical, or overall complications or revisions at minimum 2Y follow-up., Conclusion: Patients with MS experienced similar postoperative course compared to those without MS following ≥ 4-level fusion for ASD. This data supports the findings of multiple previously published case series' that long segment fusions for ASD can be performed relatively safely in patients with MS., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Scoliosis Research Society.)

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.)

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: Clinical case series., Objective: To describe the cause, treatment and outcome of 6 cases of perioperative spinal cord injury (SCI) in high-risk adult deformity surgery., Setting: Adult spinal deformity patients were enrolled in the multi-center Scoli-RISK-1 cohort study., Methods: A total of 272 patients who underwent complex adult deformity surgery were enrolled in the prospective, multi-center Scoli-RISK-1 cohort study. Clinical follow up data were available up to a maximum of 2 years after index surgery. Cases of perioperative SCI were identified and an extensive case review was performed., Results: Six individuals with SCI were identified from the Scoli-RISK-1 database (2.2%). Two cases occurred intraoperatively and four cases occurred postoperatively. The first case was an incomplete SCI due to a direct intraoperative insult and was treated postoperatively with Riluzole. The second SCI case was caused by a compression injury due to overcorrection of the deformity. Three cases of incomplete SCI occurred; one case of postoperative hematoma, one case of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and one case of adjacent segment disc herniation. All cases of post-operative incomplete SCI were managed with revision decompression and resulted in excellent clinical recovery. One case of incomplete SCI resulted from infection and PJK. The patient's treatment was complicated by a delay in revision and the patient suffered persistent neurological deficits up to six weeks following the onset of SCI., Conclusion: Despite the low incidence in high-risk adult deformity surgeries, perioperative SCI can result in devastating consequences. Thus, appropriate postoperative care, follow up and timely management of SCI are essential., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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.)

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: This study was a retrospective multi-center comparative cohort study., Materials and Methods: A retrospective institutional database of operative adult spinal deformity patients was utilized. All fusions > 5 vertebral levels and including the sacrum/pelvis were eligible for inclusion. Revisions, 3 column osteotomies, and patients with < 2-year clinical follow-up were excluded. Patients were separated into 3 groups based on surgical approach: 1) posterior spinal fusion without interbody (PSF), 2) PSF with interbody (PSF-IB), and 3) anteroposterior (AP) fusion (anterior lumbar interbody fusion or lateral lumbar interbody fusion with posterior screw fixation). Intraoperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes, as well as complications, were compared between groups with ANOVA and χ 2 tests., Results: One-hundred and thirty-eight patients were included for study (PSF, n = 37; PSF-IB, n = 44; AP, n = 57). Intraoperatively, estimated blood loss was similar between groups (p = 0.171). However, the AP group had longer operative times (547.5 min) compared to PSF (385.1) and PSF-IB (370.7) (p < 0.001). Additionally, fusion length was shorter in PSF-IB (11.4) compared to AP (13.6) and PSF (12.9) (p = 0.004). There were no differences between the groups in terms of change in alignment from preoperative to 2 years postoperative. There were no differences in clinical outcomes. While postoperative complications were largely similar between groups, operative complications were higher in the AP group (31.6%) compared to the PSF (5.4%) and PSF-IB (9.1) groups (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: While there were differences in intraoperative outcomes (operative time and fusion length), there were no differences in postoperative clinical or radiographic outcomes. AP fusion was associated with a higher rate of operative complications., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

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 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 of a prospectively-collected multicenter database., Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine optimal strategies in terms of focal angular correction and length of proximal extension during revision for PJF., Methods: 134 patients requiring proximal extension for PJF were analyzed in this study. The correlation between amount of proximal junctional angle (PJA) reduction and recurrence of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and/or PJF was investigated. Following stratification by the degree of PJK correction and the numbers of levels extended proximally, rates of radiographic PJK (PJA >28° & ΔPJA >22°), and recurrent surgery for PJF were reported., Results: Before revision, mean PJA was 27.6° ± 14.6°. Mean number of levels extended was 6.0 ± 3.3. Average PJA reduction was 18.8° ± 18.9°. A correlation between the degree of PJA reduction and rate of recurrent PJK was observed (r = -.222). Recurrent radiographic PJK (0%) and clinical PJF (4.5%) were rare in patients undergoing extension ≥8 levels, regardless of angular correction. Patients with small reductions (<5°) and small extensions (<4 levels) experienced moderate rates of recurrent PJK (19.1%) and PJF (9.5%). Patients with large reductions (>30°) and extensions <8 levels had the highest rate of recurrent PJK (31.8%) and PJF (16.0%)., Conclusion: While the degree of focal PJK correction must be determined by the treating surgeon based upon clinical goals, recurrent PJK may be minimized by limiting reduction to <30°. If larger PJA correction is required, more extensive proximal fusion constructs may mitigate recurrent PJK/PJF rates., 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: 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.

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: 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.)

Objective: The present study utilized recently developed in-construct measurements in simulations of cervical deformity surgery in order to assess undercorrection and predict distal junctional kyphosis (DJK)., Methods: A retrospective review of a database of operative cervical deformity patients was analyzed for severe DJK and mild DJK. C2-lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) sagittal angle (SA) was measured postoperatively, and the correction was simulated in the preoperative radiograph in order to match the C2-LIV by using the planning software. Linear regression analysis that used C2 pelvic angle (CPA) and pelvic tilt (PT) determined the simulated PT that matched the virtual CPA. Linear regression analysis was used to determine the C2-T1 SA, C2-T4 SA, and C2-T10 SA that corresponded to DJK of 20° and cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) of 40 mm., Results: Sixty-nine cervical deformity patients were included. Severe and mild DJK occurred in 11 (16%) and 22 (32%) patients, respectively; 3 (4%) required DJK revision. Simulated corrections demonstrated that severe and mild DJK patients had worse alignment compared to non-DJK patients in terms of cSVA (42.5 mm vs 33.0 mm vs 23.4 mm, p < 0.001) and C2-LIV SVA (68.9 mm vs 57.3 mm vs 36.8 mm, p < 0.001). Linear regression revealed the relationships between in-construct measures (C2-T1 SA, C2-T4 SA, and C2-T10 SA), cSVA, and change in DJK (all R > 0.57, p < 0.001). A cSVA of 40 mm corresponded to C2-T4 SA of 10.4° and C2-T10 SA of 28.0°. A DJK angle change of 10° corresponded to C2-T4 SA of 5.8° and C2-T10 SA of 20.1°., Conclusions: Simulated cervical deformity corrections demonstrated that severe DJK patients have insufficient corrections compared to patients without DJK. In-construct measures assess sagittal alignment within the fusion separate from DJK and subjacent compensation. They can be useful as intraoperative tools to gauge the adequacy of cervical deformity correction.

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.)

Study Design: This was a retrospective review., Objective: To assess the factors contributing to durability of surgical results following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery., Summary of Background: Factors contributing to the long-term sustainability of ASD correction are currently undefined., Materials and Methods: Operative ASD patients with preoperatively (baseline) and 3-year postoperatively radiographic/health-related quality of life data were included. At 1 and 3 years postoperatively, a favorable outcome was defined as meeting at least three of four criteria: (1) no proximal junctional failure or mechanical failure with reoperation, (2) best clinical outcome (BCO) for Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) (≥4.5) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (<15), (3) improving in at least one SRS-Schwab modifier, and (4) not worsening in any SRS-Schwab modifier. A robust surgical result was defined as having a favorable outcome at both 1 and 3 years. Predictors of robust outcomes were identified using multivariable regression analysis with conditional inference tree for continuous variables., Results: We included 157 ASD patients in this analysis. At 1 year postoperatively, 62 patients (39.5%) met the BCO definition for ODI and 33 (21.0%) met the BCO for SRS. At 3 years, 58 patients (36.9%) had BCO for ODI and 29 (18.5%) for SRS. Ninety-five patients (60.5%) were identified as having a favorable outcome at 1 year postoperatively. At 3 years, 85 patients (54.1%) had a favorable outcome. Seventy-eight patients (49.7%) met criteria for a durable surgical result. Multivariable adjusted analysis identified the following independent predictors of surgical durability: surgical invasiveness >65, being fused to S1/pelvis, baseline to 6-week pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis difference >13.9°, and having a proportional Global Alignment and Proportion score at 6 weeks., Conclusions: Nearly 50% of the ASD cohort demonstrated good surgical durability, with favorable radiographic alignment and functional status maintained up to 3 years. Surgical durability was more likely in patients whose reconstruction was fused to the pelvis and addressed lumbopelvic mismatch with adequate surgical invasiveness to achieve full alignment correction., 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. C.P.: DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company Ethicon: Paid presenter or speaker. 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. A.J.S.: AAOS: Board or committee member. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery—American: Editorial or governing board. North American Spine Society: Board or committee member. Springer: Publishing royalties, financial or material support. Wolters Kluwer Health—Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Publishing royalties, financial or material support. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial., Objective: To examine the effect of intravenous ketorolac (IV-K) on hospital opioid use compared with IV-placebo (IV-P) and IV acetaminophen (IV-A)., Summary of Background Data: Controlling postoperative pain while minimizing opioid use after lumbar spinal fusion is an important area of study., Patients and Methods: Patients aged 18 to 75 years undergoing 1 to 2 level lumbar fusions between April 2016 and December 2019 were included. Patients with chronic opioid use, smokers, and those on systemic glucocorticoids or contraindications to study medications were excluded. A block randomization scheme was used, and study personnel, hospital staff, and subjects were blinded to the assignment. Patients were randomized postoperatively. The IV-K group received 15 mg (age > 65) or 30 mg (age < 65) every six hours (q6h) for 48 hours, IV-A received 1000 mg q6h, and IV-P received normal saline q6h for 48 hours. Demographic and surgical details, opioid use in morphine milliequivalents, opioid-related adverse events, and length of stay (LOS) were recorded. The primary outcome was in-hospital opioid use up to 72 hours., Results: A total of 171 patients were included (58 IV-K, 55 IV-A, and 58 IV-P) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, with a mean age of 57.1 years. The IV-K group had lower opioid use at 72 hours (173 ± 157 mg) versus IV-A (255 ± 179 mg) and IV-P (299 ± 179 mg; P = 0.000). In terms of opiate use, IV-K was superior to IV-A ( P = 0.025) and IV-P ( P = 0.000) on ITT analysis, although on per-protocol analysis, the difference with IV-A did not reach significance ( P = 0.063). When compared with IV-P, IV-K patients reported significantly lower worst ( P = 0.004), best ( P = 0.001), average ( P = 0.001), and current pain ( P = 0.002) on postoperative day 1, and significantly shorter LOS ( P = 0.009) on ITT analysis. There were no differences in opioid-related adverse events, drain output, clinical outcomes, transfusion rates, or fusion rates., Conclusions: By reducing opioid use, improving pain control on postoperative day 1, and decreasing LOS without increases in complications or pseudarthrosis, IV-K may be an important component of "enhanced recovery after surgery" protocols., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: Retrospective cohort study., Objectives: Identify optimal lumbar lordosis in adult deformity correction to achieve age-adjusted targets and sustained alignment., Methods: Surgical adult spinal deformity patients reaching an age-adjusted ideal alignment at one year were identified. Multilinear regression analysis was used to identify the relationship between regional curvatures (LL and TK) that enabled achievement of a given global alignment (T1 pelvic angle, TPA) based on pelvic incidence (PI)., Results: 347 patients out of 1048 available reached their age-adjusted TPA within 5° (60-year-old, 72% women, body mass index 29 ± 6.2). They had a significant improvement in all sagittal parameters (except PI) from pre-operative baseline to 1 year following surgery ( P < .001). Multilinear regression predicting L1-S1 based on TK, TPA, and PI demonstrated excellent results (R2 = .85). Simplification of the coefficients of prediction combined with a conversion to an age-based formula led to the following: LL = PI - 0.3TK - 0.5Age + 10. Internal validation of the formula led to a mean error of -.4°, and an absolute error of 5.0°. Internal validation on patients with an age-adjusted alignment revealed similar accuracy across the entire age-adjusted TPA spectrum (ranges of LL errors: ME = .2° to 1.7°, AE = 4.0° to 5.3°)., Conclusion: This study provides a simple guideline to identify the amount of LL needed to reach a given alignment (i.e., age-adjusted target) based on PI and associated TK. Implementation of this predictive formula during pre-operative surgical planning may help to reduce unexpected sub-optimal post-operative alignment outcomes., 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: Postoperative reciprocal changes (RC) in the cervical spine associated with varying factors of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) following fusions of the thoracopelvic spine are poorly understood., Purpose: Explore reciprocal changes in the cervical spine associated with varying factors (severity, progression, patient age) of PJK in patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction., Patients and Methods: Retrospective review of a multicenter ASD database., Inclusion: ASD patients > 18 y/o, undergoing fusions from the thoracic spine (UIV: T6-T12) to the pelvis with two-year radiographic data. ASD was defined as: Coronal Cobb angle ≥ 20°, Sagittal Vertical Axis ≥ 5 cm, Pelvic Tilt ≥ 25°, and/or Thoracic Kyphosis ≥ 60°. PJK was defined as a ≥ 10° measure of the sagittal Cobb angle between the inferior endplate of the UIV and the superior endplate of the UIV + 2. Patients were grouped by mild (M; 10°-20°) and severe (S; > 20°) PJK at one year. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) controlled for CCI, age, PI and UIV. Unpaired and paired t test analyses determined difference between RC parameters and change between time points. Pearson bi-variate correlations analyzed associations between RC parameters (T4-T12, TS-CL, cSVA, C2-Slope, and T1-Slope) and PJK descriptors., Results: 284 ASD patients (UIV: T6: 1.1%; T7: 0.7%; T8: 4.6%; T9: 9.9%; T10: 58.8%; T11: 19.4%; T12: 5.6%) were studied. PJK analysis consisted of 182 patients (Mild = 91 and Severe = 91). Significant difference between M and S groups were observed in T4-T12 Δ1Y(- 16.8 v - 22.8, P = 0.001), TS-CLΔ1Y(- 0.6 v 2.8, P = 0.037), cSVAΔ1Y(- 1.8 v 1.9, P = 0.032), and C2 slopeΔ1Y(- 1.6 v 2.3, P = 0.022). By two years post-op, all changes in cervical alignment parameters were similar between mild and severe groups. Correlation between age and cSVAΔ1Y(R = 0.153, P = 0.034) was found. Incidence of severe PJK was found to correlate with TS-CLΔ1Y(R = 0.142, P = 0.049), cSVAΔ1Y(R = 0.171, P = 0.018), C2SΔ1Y(R = 0.148, P = 0.040), and T1SΔ2Y(R = 0.256, P = 0.003)., Conclusions: Compensation within the cervical spine differed between individuals with mild and severe PJK at one year postoperatively. However, similar levels of pathologic change in cervical alignment parameters were seen by two years, highlighting the progression of cervical compensation due to mild PJK over time. These findings provide greater evidence for the development of cervical deformity in individuals presenting with proximal junctional kyphosis., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Scoliosis Research Society.)

Background: The Roussouly, SRS-Schwab, and Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) classifications define alignment by spinal shape and deformity severity. The efficacy of different surgical approaches and techniques to successfully achieve these goals is not well understood., Purpose: Identify the impact of surgical approach and/or technique on meeting complex realignment goals in adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery., Study Design/setting: Retrospective study., Materials and Methods: Included patients with ASD fused to pelvis with 2-year data. Patients were categorized by: (1) Roussouly: matching current and theoretical spinal shapes, (2) improving in SRS-Schwab modifiers (0, +, ++), and (3) improving GAP proportionality by 2 years. Analysis of covariance and multivariable logistic regression analyses controlling for age, levels fused, baseline deformity, and 3-column osteotomy usage compared the effect of different surgical approaches, interbody, and osteotomy use on meeting realignment goals., Results: A total of 693 patients with ASD were included. By surgical approach, 65.7% were posterior-only and 34.3% underwent anterior-posterior approach with 76% receiving an osteotomy (21.8% 3-column osteotomy). By 2 years, 34% matched Roussouly, 58% improved in GAP, 45% in SRS-Schwab pelvic tilt (PT), 62% sagittal vertical axis, and 70% pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis. Combined approaches were most effective for improvement in PT [odds ratio (OR): 1.7 (1.1-2.5)] and GAP [OR: 2.2 (1.5-3.2)]. Specifically, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) below L3 demonstrated higher rates of improvement versus TLIFs in Roussouly [OR: 1.7 (1.1-2.5)] and GAP [OR: 1.9 (1.3-2.7)]. Patients undergoing pedicle subtraction osteotomy at L3 or L4 were more likely to improve in PT [OR: 2.0 (1.0-5.2)] and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis [OR: 3.8 (1.4-9.8)]. Clinically, patients undergoing the combined approach demonstrated higher rates of meeting SCB in Oswestry Disability Index by 2 years while minimizing rates of proximal junctional failure, most often with an ALIF at L5-S1 [Oswestry Disability Index-SCB: OR: 1.4 (1.1-2.0); proximal junctional failure: OR: 0.4 (0.2-0.8)]., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing ASD realignment, optimal lumbar shape and proportion can be achieved more often with a combined approach. Although TLIFs, incorporating a 3-column osteotomy, at L3 and L4 can restore lordosis and normalize pelvic compensation, ALIFs at L5-S1 were most likely to achieve complex realignment goals with an added clinical benefit and mitigation of junctional failure., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, 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.

Background: Cannabis is the most commonly used recreational drug in the USA. Studies evaluating cannabis use and its impact on outcomes following cervical spinal fusion (CF) are limited. This study sought to assess the impact of isolated (exclusive) cannabis use on postoperative outcomes following CF by analyzing outcomes like complications, readmissions, and revisions., Methods: The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) was queried for patients who underwent CF between January 2009 and September 2013. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years and either a minimum 90-day (for complications and readmissions) or 2-year (for revisions) follow-up surveillance. Patients with systemic disease, osteomyelitis, cancer, trauma, and concomitant substance or polysubstance abuse/dependence were excluded. Patients with a preoperative International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis of isolated cannabis abuse (Cannabis) or dependence were identified. The primary outcome measures were 90-day complications, 90-day readmissions, and two-year revisions following CF. Cannabis patients were 1:1 propensity score-matched by age, gender, race, Deyo score, surgical approach, and tobacco use to non-cannabis users and compared for outcomes. Multivariate binary stepwise logistic regression models identified independent predictors of outcomes., Results: 432 patients (n=216 each) with comparable age, sex, Deyo scores, tobacco use, and distribution of anterior or posterior surgical approaches were identified (all p>0.05). Cannabis patients were predominantly Black (27.8% vs. 12.0%), primarily utilized Medicaid (29.6% vs. 12.5%), and had longer LOS (3.0 vs. 1.9 days), all p≤0.001. Both cohorts experienced comparable rates of 90-day medical and surgical, as well as overall complications (5.6% vs. 3.7%) and two-year revisions (4.2% vs. 2.8%, p=0.430), but isolated cannabis patients had higher 90-day readmission rates (11.6% vs. 6.0%, p=0.042). Isolated cannabis use independently predicted 90-day readmission (Odds Ratio=2.0), but did not predict any 90-day complications or two year revisions (all p>0.05)., Conclusion: Isolated baseline cannabis dependence/abuse was associated with increased risk of 90-day readmission following CF. Further investigation of the physiologic impact of cannabis on musculoskeletal patients may elucidate significant contributory factors. Level of Evidence: III ., Competing Interests: Disclosures: No conflicts of interest impacted this study in any aspect or manner. The following authors have no conflicts of interest to report: NVS, CRM, JDL, BK, GAB, CBP, BGD. PGP has received grant funding from CSRS, speaker and consultant honoraria from Globus Medical, Medicrea, SpineWave, and Zimmer, and other financial support from Allosource. RL has stock in Nemaris. HJK has received grant funding from ISSGF, speaker and consultant honoraria from Alphatec, royalties from K2M and Zimmer, and serves on boards or committees for AAOS, AO SPINE, CSRS, HSS, Asian Spine, and SRS. FJS has received grant funding from DePuy, NuVasive, Allosource, K2M, Medtronic, and Si Bone, speaker and consultant honoraria from Globus Medical, Mainstay Medical, Medtronic, and ZimmerBiomet, royalties from Medicrea, Medtronic, and Zimmer and serves on boards or committees for SRS, Spine Deformity, and ISSG. VL has received grant funding from DePuy, NuVasive, Allosource, K2M, Medtronic, and Si-Bone, speaker and consultant honoraria from Globus Medical, DePuy, and Stryker, stock in VFT Solutions, and serves on boards or committees for ISSG and SRS., (Copyright © The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal 2023.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: Understand the benefit of addressing malalignment in revision surgery for proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK)., Summary of Background Data: PJK is a common cause of revision surgery for adult spinal deformity patients. During a revision, surgeons may elect to perform a proximal extension of the fusion, or also correct the source of the lumbopelvic mismatch., Materials and Methods: Recurrent PJK following revision surgery was the primary outcome. Revision surgical strategy was the primary predictor (proximal extension of fusion alone compared with combined sagittal correction and proximal extension). Multivariable logistic regression determined rates of recurrent PJK between the two surgical groups with lumbopelvic surgical correction assessed through improving ideal alignment in one or more alignment criteria [Global Alignment and Proportionality (GAP), Roussouly-type, and Sagittal Age-Adjusted Score (SAAS)]., Results: A total of 151 patients underwent revision surgery for PJK. PJK occurred at a rate of 43.0%, and PJF at 12.6%. Patients proportioned in GAP postrevision had lower rates of recurrent PJK [23% vs. 42%; odds ratio (OR): 0.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1-0.8, P =0.024]. Following adjusted analysis, patients who were ideally aligned in one of three criteria (Matching in SAAS and/or Roussouly matched and/or achieved GAP proportionality) had lower rates of recurrent PJK (36% vs. 53%; OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.1-0.9, P =0.035) and recurrent PJF (OR: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.02-0.7, P =0.015). Patients ideally aligned in two of three criteria avoid any development of PJF (0% vs. 16%, P <0.001)., Conclusions: Following revision surgery for PJK, patients with persistent poor sagittal alignment showed increased rates of recurrent PJK compared with patients who had abnormal lumbopelvic alignment corrected during the revision. These findings suggest addressing the root cause of surgical failure in addition to proximal extension of the fusion may be beneficial., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) is a complex pathologic condition with significant impact on quality of life, including pain, loss of function, and fatigue. Achieving realignment goals is crucial for long-term results. Reliable preoperative planning strategies, including nomograms, measurement tools, and level selection, are key to maximizing the likelihood of achieving a good outcome following ASD corrective surgery. This review covers recent literature on such strategies, including review of the different targets for realignment and their association with outcomes (both patients-reported outcomes and complications), selection of upper and lower instrumented vertebrae, and the latest innovation in preoperative planning for deformity surgery., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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.

Study Design: This is a retrospective case-control study., Objectives: The objectives of this study are to identify (1) risk factors for delayed ambulation following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery and (2) complications associated with delayed ambulation., Methods: One-hundred and ninety-one patients with ASD who underwent posterior-only fusion (≥5 levels, LIV pelvis) were reviewed. Patients who ambulated with physical therapy (PT) on POD2 or later (LateAmb, n = 49) were propensity matched 1:1 to patients who ambulated on POD0-1 (NmlAmb, n = 49) based on the extent of fusion and surgical invasiveness score (ASD-S). Risk factors, as well as inpatient medical complications were compared. Logistic regressions were used to identify risk factors for late ambulation., Results: Of the patients who did not ambulate on POD0-1, 32% declined participation secondary to pain or dizziness/fatigue, while 68% were restricted from participation by PT/nursing due to fatigue, inability to follow commands, nausea/dizziness, pain, or hypotension. Logistic regression showed that intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL) >2L (OR = 5.57 [1.51-20.55], P = .010) was independently associated with an increased risk of delayed ambulation, with a 1.25 times higher risk for every 250 mL increase in EBL ( P = .014). Modified 5-Item Frailty Index (mFI-5) was also independently associated with delayed ambulation (OR = 2.53 [1.14-5.63], P = .023). LateAmb demonstrated a higher hospital LOS (8.4 ± 4.0 vs 6.2 ± 2.6, P < .001). The LateAmb group trended toward an increase in medical complications on POD3+ (14.3% vs 26.5%, P = .210)., Conclusions: EBL demonstrates a dose-response relationship with risk for delayed ambulation. Delayed ambulation increases LOS and may impact medical complications., 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.