Mikula, Anthony L.

OBJECTIVE Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) affects 5%–61% of patients following thoracolumbar fusion. Many patients are asymptomatic, but a plurality require surgical revision at a cost of $75,000 per case. This analysis sought to analyze the degree to which bone quality and paraspinal muscle sarcopenia influence PJK failure mode. METHODS Patients undergoing thoracolumbar instrumented fusion with an upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) at the thoracolumbar junction (T10–L2) were identified and data were gathered on surgery, bone quality, pre- and postoperative sagittal alignment, and paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area (CSA). PJK was defined as a ≥ 10° increase in proximal junctional angle from the first postoperative radiograph. PJK was classified as discoligamentous failure (type 1), bone failure (type 2), or screw-bone interface failure (type 3) according to the Yagi-Boachie system. Bone quality was assessed by Hounsfield units (HUs) and the vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score at the UIV. RESULTS One hundred fifty patients were identified (median age 67 years, 53.3% female), 46 of whom experienced PJK (22 type 1, 13 type 2, 11 type 3). The median time to onset was most rapid for type 2 events (2.6 months). There were no differences between patients experiencing PJK versus controls regarding bone quality (HUs or VBQ score) or paraspinal muscle CSA on univariate comparison. However, subdivision by PJK type showed patients experiencing bone failure (type 2) PJK had significantly lower HUs at the UIV and UIV+1 relative to those experiencing type 1 PJK or no PJK (all p < 0.05). The VBQ score trended toward being significant, with a higher VBQ score (worse bone quality) in those suffering type 2 PJK, but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07). Patients experiencing discoligamentous failure PJK (type 1) had small multifidus CSA (390 mm 2 ) relative to patients experiencing type 2 (516 mm 2 ) or type 3 (440 mm 2 ) PJK and patients who did not experience PJK (481 mm 2 ), although the difference did not reach statistical significance. On time-to-event analysis, low HUs of the UIV/UIV+1 predicted type 2 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.70–0.93; p = 0.002) and type 2/3 PJK (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78–0.96; p = 0.006) but not type 1 PJK. Low UIV multifidus CSA trended toward being a significant predictor of type 1 PJK (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69–1.05; p < 0.10). CONCLUSIONS The combination of underlying bone quality and paraspinal musculature CSA at the UIV appeared to influence failure mode among patients who underwent lumbosacral instrumented fusion terminating at the thoracolumbar junction.

OBJECTIVE Spinal stereotactic radiosurgery (SSRS) is an established treatment modality for spinal metastatic disease. A common complication of SSRS is postradiation pathologic fracture. The authors evaluated the risk of pathologic fracture in sacral SSRS. METHODS All patients receiving SSRS in 1 to 5 fractions to 1 or more sacral levels between 2011 and 2020 at participating institutions were included. Demographic, histological, anatomical, and outcome data were obtained from electronic medical records. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28. RESULTS Of 67 total patients, 50 (74.6%) were men and 17 (25.4%) were women. The most common tumor histologies were prostate adenocarcinoma (n = 16 [23.9%]) and renal cell carcinoma (n = 12 [17.9%]). Median (range) age at treatment was 63 (8–87) years. The mean ± SD (range) number of levels treated was 1.5 ± 0.7 (1–4) levels. Mean ± SD (range) bone density at S1 was 208.0 ± 74.4 (−3.0 to 443.3) Hounsfield units (HUs). Median (range) follow-up was 16.6 (1.5–132) months, median ± SD (range) overall survival was 24 ± 21.0 (1.7–83.3) months, and the 1-year local control rate was 83.6%. Fourteen patients (20.9%) experienced fracture within the radiation field. There was no association between fracture and patient sex (p = 0.32), age (p = 0.40), S1 HU (p = 0.28), tumor location according to Denis classification (p = 0.87), presence of pain (p = 0.66), single versus multifraction radiation (p = 0.44), or number of levels treated (p = 0.52). Patients experiencing in-field progression were more likely to experience fracture (61.5% vs 10.2%, p < 0.001), and patients experiencing fracture had a higher average Spine Instability Neoplastic Score than patients without fracture (5.7 vs 4.3, p = 0.049). Only local control remained as a factor associated with sacral fracture in the multivariate analysis. Of the patients experiencing fracture, 10 (71.4%) were symptomatic and 3 of those (30.0%) underwent post-SSRS surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS Pathologic fracture may occur after sacral SSRS in a significant number of patients and is significantly associated with failure of local control.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for mechanical complications following complex spinal reconstruction for spondylectomy of primary spinal column tumors. METHODS A retrospective chart review identified patients treated with spondylectomy for primary spinal column tumors in the thoracic or lumbar spine followed by posterior instrumentation and anterior column reconstruction. Variables collected included basic demographics, smoking status, chronic steroid use, frailty (Charlson Comorbidity Index), extent of resection, Weinstein-Boriani-Biagini classification, tumor volume, Spine Instability Neoplastic Score, anterior column reconstruction and fixation techniques, rod characteristics, Hounsfield units (HUs), and neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemoradiation. RESULTS Twenty-five patients were included (14 men, 11 women) with an average (± SD) age of 45 ± 18 years, BMI of 28 ± 5.7, and follow-up of 6.0 ± 6.2 years. Primary spinal column tumor pathology included chordoma (40%), chondrosarcoma (16%), giant cell tumor (16%), osteosarcoma (16%), osteoblastoma (8%), and aneurysmal bone cyst (4%). Six patients (24%) experienced mechanical complications, including rod fractures (n = 5) and distal junctional failure (n = 1). Of the 6 patients with mechanical complications, 4 (67%) underwent reoperation. The length of follow-up was the only statistically significant risk factor for patients with mechanical complications (average 11 years) compared to those without complications (average 4.4 years, p = 0.047). Average HUs were 144 for mechanical complication patients versus 180 for those without (p = 0.08). Anterior column reconstruction materials included a titanium cage (13 patients, 3 failures), structural allograft (6 patients, 2 failures), vascularized fibular strut autograft (6 patients, no failures), nonvascularized structural autograft (5 patients, 1 failure), vascularized rib autograft (5 patients, 2 failures), and a polyetheretherketone cage (2 patients, no failures). The vascularized fibular strut autograft had a 0% mechanical failure rate, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.28). Twelve patients (48%) had anterior fixation placed, with a 17% rate of mechanical complications (p = 0.65). Five patients (20%) had > 2-rod constructs, with a 20% mechanical complication rate (p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS Reconstruction following primary spinal column tumor resection is a significant challenge, as evident by a high rate of mechanical complications and instrumentation failure. Future studies are needed with larger sample sizes to identify techniques that may mitigate the risk of failure.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risks and benefits of removing painful pelvic/iliac screws in spine fusion surgery patients. METHODS A retrospective review identified patients who had traditional iliac and S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screws removed for pain. The minimum follow-up was 24 months. RESULTS Fifty-two patients (75% women) were included with a mean age of 63 years, BMI of 28, and follow-up of 65 months. Most of the removed screws were S2AI (83%) compared with traditional iliac screws (17%). Forty-three patients (83%) had improvement in their pelvic screw related–pain following removal. Eight patients (15%) experienced lumbosacral mechanical complications following pelvic screw removal including sacral fracture (n = 3, 6%) and/or L4–5 or L5–S1 rod fracture (n = 7, 13%). On multivariable analysis, risk factors for mechanical complications following pelvic screw removal included a longer fusion construct (OR 1.34, p = 0.035), greater postoperative L4–S1 lordosis (OR 1.14, p = 0.04, ideal cutoff > 40°), and lack of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP; OR 0.03, p = 0.02). Ten patients (19%) underwent subsequent SI joint fusion following pelvic screw removal, and higher standing pelvic incidence (OR 1.10, p = 0.03) was the only independent predictor of SI fusion. CONCLUSIONS Removal of painful pelvic screws resulted in a high rate of postoperative pain relief, albeit with a risk of lumbosacral mechanical complications and subsequent SI joint fusion. Patients at risk for lumbosacral mechanical complications following pelvic screw removal included those with longer fusion constructs, more lordosis from L4 to S1 (> 40°), and lack of BMP. Patients at risk for receiving an instrumented SI joint fusion following pelvic screw removal included those with a higher pelvic incidence.

OBJECTIVE Pelvic incidence (PI) is a key parameter of sagittal alignment. While conventionally held to be fixed, increasing evidence suggests PI may be variable. This study aimed to identify predictors of change in PI with patient position and to assess the association of preoperative radiographic characteristics and intraoperative maneuvers with postoperative PI. METHODS Patients who underwent thoracolumbosacral fusion were identified, and data were gathered on preoperative spinopelvic parameters, patient demographic characteristics, and operative details. Preoperative spinopelvic parameters were measured on upright, supine, and prone radiographs. Univariable comparisons of PI between the different patient positions were performed. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify variables independently correlated with PI on 6-week postoperative radiographs. Change in PI was defined as ≥ 5° change between positions. RESULTS In total, 138 patients were identified (mean ± SD age 66.0 ± 8.7 years; 38.4% male). Statistically significant differences in PI were noted between preoperative standing and supine (mean −3.2° ± 4.2°, p < 0.001), preoperative supine and prone (3.5° ± 4.7°, p < 0.001), preoperative and 6-week postoperative standing (1.5° ± 6.2°, p = 0.01), and immediate and 6-week upright (1.1° ± 3.9°, p = 0.007) radiographs. Univariable comparisons showed PI decrease from standing to supine was predicted only by weight (87.0 ± 15.0 vs 81.1 ± 19.3 kg, p = 0.04); there were no significant predictors of increase in PI from standing to prone. Increase in PI from preoperative to 6-week standing radiographs was predicted by lower preoperative PI class (p < 0.001), L5/S1 interbody placement (74.4% vs 52.0%, p = 0.02), and change in PI from preoperative standing to supine (12.8% vs 39.8%, p = 0.002) and from standing to prone (51.3% vs 13.3%, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that 6-week postoperative PI was associated with only preoperative supine PI (B = 0.293, 95% CI 0.10–0.48, p = 0.003) and prone PI (B = 0.647, 95% CI 0.44–0.85, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS There are position-dependent changes in PI among patients without prior pelvic fixation. Statistically significant changes in PI are seen even after pelvic fixation with a single S2-alar-iliac screw bilaterally. Postoperative PI was best predicted by preoperative PI on supine and prone radiographs rather than upright radiographs, suggesting that preoperative prone and supine radiographs may provide surgeons with the best information for achieving PI–lumbar lordosis mismatch < 10°.

OBJECTIVE Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) offers both indirect decompression and segmental correction through restoration of disc height. However, stresses exerted on the vertebral endplates by the interbody device can result in implant subsidence and loss of correction. The present time-to-event analysis aimed to identify predictors of interbody subsidence. METHODS Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level TLIF were identified. Data on demographics, surgical details, preoperative bone quality using CT-based Hounsfield units (HU), and pre- and postoperative lumbopelvic parameters were collected. Univariable analyses were conducted to identify predictors of subsidence (≥ 2-mm intrusion of interbody into cranial or caudal vertebrae) and significant subsidence (≥ 4-mm intrusion). Multivariable Cox regression was performed to identify independent predictors of subsidence, expressed as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS A total of 198 patients treated at 241 levels were included (median age 66.6 years, IQR 59.5, 73.7 years; 56.6% were women). In 92 levels (38.2%) there was some subsidence and in 25 (10.4%) there was significant subsidence. Implanted levels demonstrating subsidence (≥ 2 mm) were associated with lower HU in cranial and caudal vertebrae; had interbodies positioned farther from the anterior apophyseal ring; were implanted with taller, more lordotic interbodies; and underwent greater disc height restoration. Those showing significant subsidence (≥ 4 mm) were similarly associated with lower HU in the cranial and caudal vertebrae; had interbodies positioned farther from the anterior apophyseal ring of the caudal vertebrae; and underwent greater disc height restoration. Multivariable Cox regression showed that time to subsidence was predicted by greater implant height (HR 1.20/mm, 95% CI 1.05–1.38; p = 0.009), greater postoperative disc height (HR 1.21/mm, 95% CI 1.09–1.34; p < 0.001), and greater disc height restoration (HR 1.11/mm, 95% CI 1.04–1.19; p = 0.002). The time-to-subsidence analysis for significant (≥ 4 mm) subsidence showed that it was predicted by lower HU in the cranial vertebrae (HR 0.98/unit, 95% CI 0.97–0.99; p = 0.001); increasing number of levels instrumented (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.04–1.52; p = 0.016); and greater disc height restoration (HR 1.33/mm, 95% CI 1.18–1.51; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS This time-to-event analysis suggests that interbody subsidence following TLIF is best predicted by implantation of a taller interbody and aggressive disc height restoration. Significant subsidence is similarly predicted by aggressive disc height restoration along with poor baseline bone quality. The results suggest the need to balance aggressive correction at the time of surgery against the increased risk of subsequent interbody subsidence.

Introduction: Bone health optimization is a key component of the preoperative management of spine surgery patients, as poor bone quality increases the odds of mechanical complications. The present study aimed to achieve the following: (1) compare the relative efficacy of current osteoporosis medications in improving bone quality; (2) identify factors influencing treatment response in preoperative spine surgery patients. Methods: Patients treated at a single, multisite institution who received osteoporosis treatment were identified. Data were gathered on pre- and post-treatment lumbar spine Hounsfield Unit (HU) measurements, patient demographics, frailty scores (modified Frailty Index/mFI, risk analysis index/RAI), and pharmacologic treatment details. The primary outcome was a ≥7 point improvement in lumbar HU, and baseline and logistic regression models were utilized to identify factors associated with this improvement. Medications were grouped as anabolic (teriparatide, romosozumab) and antiresorptive (denosumab, alendronate) therapies. Results: A total of 267 patients were included (median age: 74 years; IQR [66–81]; 67.3% female), with 127 (47.6%) improving by ≥7 HU. The treatment agents used were alendronate (95), denosumab (113), romosozumab (31), and teriparatide (28). Univariable comparisons revealed significant differences across medication groups in age (p < 0.001), sex (p < 0.001), mFI (p < 0.001), RAI (p = 0.004), BMI (p < 0.001), pre-treatment HU (p = 0.022), and treatment duration (p < 0.001). The highest HU improvement rates (ΔHU ≥ 7) were observed in patients receiving the anabolic medications romosozumab (67.7%) and teriparatide (60.7%). Univariable logistic regression identified male sex (OR 0.54, p = 0.019), higher pre-treatment HU (OR 0.99, p = 0.006), and longer treatment duration (OR 0.97, p = 0.003) as factors associated with lower odds of HU improvement. Only romosozumab was associated with significantly higher odds of HU improvement relative to alendronate (OR 3.02, p = 0.012). In our multivariable analysis, male sex (OR 0.53, p = 0.028) and higher pre-treatment HU (OR 0.99, p = 0.002) remained significant predictors of HU improvement. However, medication type was not significant in the multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Our study highlights that male sex and higher pre-treatment HU were independently associated with lower odds of HU improvement, while medication type was not a significant predictor. Additionally, anabolic agents offered superior improvement relative to antiresorptive therapies.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine independent risk factors for vertebral compression fracture (VCF) following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in metastatic spine disease. METHODS Patients treated with SBRT for spinal metastasis at a single tertiary care center between 2008 and 2019 were retrospectively identified. Patients with CT scans obtained within 1 year of SBRT completion were included. Variables collected included demographics, Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), primary tumor pathology, Weinstein-Boriani-Biagini (WBB) classification, chemoradiation treatment details, and bone quality as assessed by Hounsfield units (HUs) on CT. HUs were measured for the medullary bone of the metastatic level, the tumor, and the vertebral bodies cephalad and caudal to the metastasis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of post-SBRT pathological fracture. RESULTS A total of 292 patients (mean age 66 years) with 392 unique lesions were included. The most common pathologies were prostate (n = 193), kidney/renal cell (n = 46), and lung (n = 33). The most common tumor levels were thoracic (n = 206 lesions) and lumbar (n = 128 lesions). SBRT was generally delivered in 1–3 fractions with doses ranging from 16 to 24 Gy in 1 fraction and 24–36 Gy in 3 fractions. Of the 392 lesions, 73 suffered VCF: 21 (29%) with < 25% height loss, 15 (21%) with 25%–40% height loss, and 37 (51%) with > 40% height loss. On univariate analysis, patients with VCF had lower average HUs (156 ± 52 vs 202 ± 89, p < 0.001), more WBB sectors involved (3 ± 2 vs 3 ± 1, p < 0.001), higher SINSs (8 ± 3 vs 6 ± 2, p < 0.001), were more commonly female (33% vs 22%, p = 0.05), and more commonly had nonprostate pathology (67% vs 47%, p = 0.003). VCF rates were similar between moderate (< 20 Gy in 1 fraction, < 30 Gy in 3 or 5 fractions) and high-dose (> 20 Gy in 1 fraction, > 30 Gy in 3 or 5 fractions) radiation schema (15% VCF vs 16% no VCF, respectively; p = 0.99). On multivariable logistic regression, independently significant predictors of VCF were HUs ≤ 229 (OR 6, p < 0.001), affected levels ≥ 3 WBB segments (OR 3, p < 0.001), and an SINS ≥ 8 (OR 2, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Low pre-radiation HUs, involvement of more WBB sectors, and a higher SINS were independent predictors of VCF following SBRT for metastatic spine disease.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors for distal junctional failure (DJF) following three-column osteotomy (3CO) for the correction of cervical deformity. METHODS A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent a cervical or upper thoracic 3CO for cervical deformity correction by the senior author from 2008 to 2023. The main outcome of interest was DJF, defined as revision surgery with extension of the distal end of the fusion construct. Patients were excluded if the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) was the sacrum/pelvis, and if patients had prior autofusion throughout the distal part of the spine to the sacrum (e.g., ankylosing spondylitis). The minimum follow-up duration was 1 year. RESULTS One hundred fourteen patients were identified who underwent a cervical or upper thoracic 3CO for cervical deformity correction, 41 of whom met inclusion criteria for this study. The median patient age was 66 years, median BMI was 27, and 61% were male. Ten patients (24%) experienced DJF, requiring reoperation and distal extension of the construct to the pelvis in 9 cases and to L1 in 1 case. On univariable analysis, patients who experienced DJF compared with those who did not were more likely to be female (80% vs 35%, p = 0.007), had lower LIV Hounsfield units (HUs; 127 vs 167, p = 0.041), were less likely to have an LIV in a small autofused segment (10% vs 45%, p = 0.02), had an LIV that was closer to the first lordotic level (one level above vs three, p = 0.043), and had a longer length of fusion (17 vs 13 levels, p = 0.033). A stepwise multivariable regression model showed that having an LIV closer to the first lordotic vertebra was the only statistically significant predictor of DJF (OR 0.49, p = 0.013) and low LIV HUs did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.97, p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS Patients with cervical deformity undergoing a 3CO are at higher risk for DJF with constructs terminating near the first lordotic vertebra. While LIV selection is complex and patient specific, choosing an LIV at least two levels above the first lordotic vertebra may help prevent DJF.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) allows for direct and indirect decompression and segmental lordosis in sagittal plane correction. This study compares the effectiveness of “Bullet” type and “Banana” type devices for sagittal plane correction. METHODS: Patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level TLIF for degenerative pathology at a single tertiary care center were identified. Details were extracted on demographics, interbody dimensions, and preoperative and postoperative lumbopelvic parameters from upright radiographs. Cages were categorized as “Bullet” or “Banana” type based on morphology and manufacturer description of optimal position. Univariable comparisons between levels treated with “Bullet” and “Banana” type interbodies were performed. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify independent predictors of postoperative segmental lordosis and change in segmental lordosis. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety eight unique patients (median 66.6 years; [IQR 59.5, 73.7]; 56.6% female) were included with 241 levels treated, of which 114 (52.7%) were treated with “Banana” type interbodies and 127 (47.3%) with “Bullet” type. “Banana” type interbodies afforded both greater postoperative segmental lordosis (8.1 [6.2, 10.7] vs 7.5 [5.2, 9.6]; P = .048) and greater increase in segmental lordosis (3.3 [0.7, 7.0] vs 2.3 [0.1, 4.2]; P = .015). On multivariable linear regression, only preoperative segmental lordosis (β = 0.322 per degree; [0.244, 0.399]; P < .001), implant listed lordosis (β = 0.146 per degree; 95% CI [0.048, 0.244]; P = .004), preoperative pelvic incidence (0.072 per degree; [0.034, 0.111]; P < .001), and use of bilateral TLIF windows (β = 3.133; [1.213, 5.053]; P = .001) were predictive of postoperative segmental lordosis. CONCLUSION: The present analysis suggests that baseline lumbopelvic anatomy, interbody lordosis, and the use of bilateral TLIF windows are the most important predictors of postoperative segmental lordosis. Use of “Banana” vs “Bullet” type interbodies was not predictive of segmental lordosis achieved on immediate postoperative upright radiographs. Further work is merited to determine whether the 2 interbody types demonstrate differences regarding subsidence risk or maintenance of correction.