Hassan, Fthimnir M

Study Design: Single-center retrospective cohort study. Objective: To determine if the 4-rod construct (4RC) is protective against the occurrence of rod fractures when compared with the 3-rod construct (3RC) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients with long fusions to the sacrum. Summary of Background Data: Past studies have explored the different outcomes in subjects with dual-rod versus multirod constructs. There is a lack of literature distinguishing the ramifications of 3RC versus 4RC, particularly in the prevalence of rod fractures and rod fractures requiring subsequent revision surgery as a result of pseudarthrosis. Methods: ASD patients undergoing long instrumented fusions to the sacrum were dichotomized between the 3RC and 4RC cohorts. Outcomes of interest include the occurrence of rod fractures (RFs) and RFs requiring revision (RFR). Two-tailed independent-sample t test with Welch's correction and χ 2 /Fisher exact test were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess whether the 4RC is protective against rod fractures when compared with the 3RC. Results: One hundred forty-five patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included (3RC=57, 4RC=88). Four RC had a greater body mass index (BMI) ( P =0.002), longer operating room (OR) time ( P =0.002), greater estimated blood loss (EBL) ( P =0.002), total instrumented levels (TIL) ( P =0.028), and more 3-column osteotomies (3COs) performed ( P =0.028). Four RC had greater baseline coronal vertical axis (CVA) (28.2±24.9 vs. 18.5±16.9 mm, P =0.006) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (55.1±64.8 vs. 30.4±41.8 mm, P =0.006). Three RC had a greater rate of RF (28.1% vs. 14.8%, P =0.0506) and RFR (14.9% vs. 10.2%, P =0.486) when compared with 4RC, but these findings were not statistically significant. After controlling for BMI, the use of 3-column osteotomies, total instrumented levels, change in coronal alignment (∆CVA), change in sagittal alignment (∆SVA), use of bone morphogenetic protein, and number of interbody fusions, 3RC was associated with 4.93× greater odds of experiencing RFs ( P =0.0078). However, significance fell short when adjusting for the occurrence of RFR [OR=2.58 (0.60–11.19), P =0.2067]. Conclusion: ASD patients having long fusions to the sacrum with 4RC across the lumbosacral junction are shown to be at lesser risk of developing rod fractures but not revision surgery as compared with 3RC at 2-year follow-up.

Study Design: Single-center retrospective analysis. Objective: To establish an empirically derived threshold to define both coronal and sagittal malalignment (CM & SM) based on preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Summary of Background Data: Currently, no radiographic alignment threshold defines preoperative CM in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients based on disability. In a cohort of ASD patients undergoing corrective surgery, we sought to establish a threshold to define both CM and SM based on PRO and assess the clinical impact of CM and combined with SM. Methods: ASD patients with ≥6 level fusions were included. CVA and SVA were measured. PROs included preoperative ODI and SRS-22r scores. CVA and SVA thresholds were derived to accurately differentiate patients with ODI >40 and SRS-pain+function <5. Patients were then separated into 4 groups: (1) neutral alignment (NA); (2) CM; (3) SM; and (4) combined coronal and sagittal malalignment (CCSM). Results: Totally, 368 patients were included. Thresholds to distinguish patients with ODI ≥40 and SRS-pain/function <5 were: (1) CVA=3.96 cm (ODI) and 3.17 cm (SRS); (2) SVA=4.97 cm (ODI) and 7.52 cm (SRS). The lower numbers were chosen to define each threshold: CVA=3 cm and SVA=5 cm. Alignment breakdown was: NA=179 (48.6%), CM=66 (17.9%), SM=65 (17.7%), and CCSM=58 (15.8%). Both SM=( P =0.006) and CCSM ( P <0.001) patients had significantly worse ODI scores than NA patients, and CCSM patients were significantly worse than SM alone ( P =0.010). On the basis of preoperative total SRS-22r scores, only CCSM ( P =0.003) patients were significantly worse than the NA group. CVA significantly correlated with 4/7 (57.1%) preoperative PROs (ODI/SRS-total/function/image), while SVA correlated with 5/7 (71.4%) preoperative PROs (ODI/SRS-total/function/image/pain). A linear relationship was seen between increasing CVA and worsening ODI (β=0.92, 95% CI: 0.37–1.48, P =0.001). A significant and slightly stronger relationship was seen between increasing SVA and worsening ODI (β=1.28, 95% CI: 1.00–1.56, P <0.001). Conclusions: CM and SM thresholds that accurately distinguished ASD patients with severe pain and disability preoperatively were 3 cm for CVA and 5 cm for SVA, respectively. Preoperative CM was significantly associated with worse ODI, SRS-22r total/function/image scores. CCSM led to more disability than SM alone.

Background: The Spinal Cord Shape Classification System (SCSCS) class has been associated with spinal cord monitoring data loss during spinal deformity surgery. The objective of the current study was to prospectively validate the SCSCS as a predictor of spinal cord monitoring data loss during spinal deformity surgery. Methods: A prospective cohort study of consecutive patients who were undergoing primary deformity surgery at a single institution from 2018 to 2023 and whose major curve was in the spinal cord region was undertaken. Spinal cord morphology at the apex of the major curve on preoperative axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was used to categorize patients into 3 spinal cord shape types based on the SCSCS. The primary outcome was intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) data loss related to spinal cord dysfunction. Demographics and surgical and radiographic variables were compared between patients with IONM data loss and those without loss. Predictors of IONM loss were determined using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 256 patients (168 adult, 88 pediatric) were included and were separated into 3 SCSCS types: 110 (43.0%) with Type I, 105 (41.0%) with Type II, and 41 (16.0%) with Type III. IONM loss was observed in 30 (11.7%) of the 256 patients, including 7 (6.4%) of 110 with SCSCS Type I, 7 (6.7%) of 105 with Type II, and 16 (39.0%) of 41 with Type III. IONM loss was associated with SCSCS Type III, the preoperative deformity angular ratio, performance of 3-column osteotomies, greater operative time, greater transfusion volume, and greater postoperative sagittal corrections. SCSCS type was the strongest independent predictor of IONM data loss. SCSCS Type III had the greatest odds of IONM loss (odds ratio [OR] = 6.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45 to 18.23 compared with Types I and II combined). The overall predictive performance with respect to IONM loss (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.827) was considered excellent. Conclusions: This prospective cohort study of patients undergoing spinal deformity correction confirmed that patients with a Type-III spinal cord shape had greater odds of IONM loss. Inclusion of the SCSCS in preoperative risk stratification and intraoperative management of spinal deformity corrective surgery is recommended. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) with fixed sagittal malalignment (FSM) may require a pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) for greater focal lordosis and restoration of global alignment. Despite growing trends in minimizing PSOs given their associated high risks, a considerable portion of patients with ASD still require a lumbar PSO most commonly because of iatrogenic flat back deformity. The purpose of this article is to describe a modified extended PSO technique with additional anterior column support coined the “sandwich” extended PSO (SE-PSO) to promote arthrodesis and report the outcomes in a consecutive case series. METHODS: Patients with ASD treated with a lumbar SE-PSO at a single institution from 2015 to 2020 were analyzed. Complications, radiographic data, and patient-reported outcomes were compared preoperatively, at immediate postoperative follow-up, and at a 2-year postoperative follow-up (FU). RESULTS: Fourteen patients who underwent revision operations for FSM were included. Improvements in segmental lordosis across the PSO site (14.8 ± 6.8 vs 39.9 ± 7.1, P < .0001), overall lumbar lordosis (14.6 ± 15.4 vs 44.6 ± 12.1, P < .0001), sacral slope (21.0 ± 10.5 31.1 ± 10.7, P = .0150), C7 sagittal vertical axis (140.1 ± 59.0 mm vs 35.9 ± 28.5, P < .0001), and spinopelvic mismatch (52.5 ± 21.3 vs 18.6 ± 14.1, P = .0001) were obtained in all patients. Eight patients experienced perioperative complications, with intraoperative durotomy being the most common (n = 7). Eight patients had a 2-year FU and demonstrated improvements in their segmental lordosis across the PSO site (14.3 ± 7.0 vs 41.3 ± 7.3, P = .0003), overall lumbar lordosis (8.7 ± 17.8 vs 46.1 ± 14.2, P = .0014), sacral slope (19.1 ± 12.8 vs 32.3 ± 12.5, P = .0479), C7 sagittal vertical axis (173.6 ± 54.4 mm vs 35.8 ± 30.0, P < .0001), and spinopelvic mismatch (63.0 ± 19.7 vs 21.1 ± 18.3, P < .0001), all of which were maintained at final FU ( P > .05). At 2 years, a significant increase in Scoliosis Research Society-22r total score (2.5 ± 0.8 vs 3.6 ± 0.7, P = .0023 was reported. There were no reports of symptomatic pseudarthrosis or mechanical complications. CONCLUSION: SE-PSO is an effective technique to correct FSM and is associated with low complications, improved patient-reported outcomes, and spinopelvic parameters that are maintained at 2 years.