Does alignment alone predict mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery? A machine learning comparison of alignment, bone quality, and soft tissue
OBJECTIVE Mechanical complications are a vexing occurrence after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. While achieving ideal spinal alignment in ASD surgery is critical, alignment alone may not fully explain all mechanical complications. The authors sought to determine which combination of inputs produced the most sensitive and specific machine learning model to predict mechanical complications using postoperative alignment, bone quality, and soft tissue data. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was performed in patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were a fusion ≥ 5 levels, sagittal/coronal deformity, and at least 2 years of follow-up. The primary exposure variables were 1) alignment, evaluated in both the sagittal and coronal planes using the L1–pelvic angle ± 3°, L4–S1 lordosis, sagittal vertical axis, pelvic tilt, and coronal vertical axis; 2) bone quality, evaluated by the T-score from a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan; and 3) soft tissue, evaluated by the paraspinal muscle–to–vertebral body ratio and fatty infiltration. The primary outcome was mechanical complications. Alongside demographic data in each model, 7 machine learning models with all combinations of domains (alignment, bone quality, and soft tissue) were trained. The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each model. RESULTS Of 231 patients (24% male) undergoing ASD surgery with a mean age of 64 ± 17 years, 147 (64%) developed at least one mechanical complication. The model with alignment alone performed poorly, with a PPV of 0.85. However, the model with alignment, bone quality, and soft tissue achieved a high PPV of 0.90, sensitivity of 0.67, and specificity of 0.84. Moreover, the model with alignment alone failed to predict 15 complications of 100, whereas the model with all three domains only failed to predict 10 of 100. CONCLUSIONS These results support the notion that not every mechanical failure is explained by alignment alone. The authors found that a combination of alignment, bone quality, and soft tissue provided the most accurate prediction of mechanical complications after ASD surgery. While achieving optimal alignment is essential, additional data including bone and soft tissue are necessary to minimize mechanical complications.
Distal junctional failure following pelvic instrumentation in spinal fusion: a novel classification system
OBJECTIVE While traditional literature in adult spinal deformity (ASD) examining mechanical complications has focused on proximal junctional kyphosis and failure, distal junctional failure (DJF) of constructs ending at the sacrum with or without spinopelvic fixation remains less explored. The current study sought to 1) propose a new DJF classification with a panel of experienced deformity surgeons, and 2) analyze intra- and interreliability of the novel classification. METHODS A prior review study was completed that identified all types of distal complications for lumbosacral fusions. A panel of 25 experienced spinal deformity surgeons used a modified Delphi approach with three rounds of review to create a classification system. Ten deformity surgeons then reviewed a representative series of 14 de-identified cases to assess the interrater reliability of the classification system using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A second round of review was conducted by each investigator to determine intrarater reliability using Cohen’s kappa coefficient. RESULTS Complications were classified as acute (< 90 days from the date of surgery) or chronic (≥ 3 months from the date of surgery). Acute failures included mechanical failure of the screws or screw-rod interface, such as pelvic set plug dissociation, tulip head dissociation, and fracture of the pelvic screw at any point along its trajectory. Fractures of the rod (proximal vs distal to S1) and distal bony anatomy (sacrum vs pelvis) were included, as was failure of the offset connector. Chronic failures also consisted of pseudarthrosis at distal levels, sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain, screw halo formation, and painful screw prominence. The intrarater and interrater reliability were both high with Cohen’s kappa of 0.91 and an ICC of 0.98, respectively. CONCLUSIONS These data provide a comprehensive and systematic classification scheme of distal complications following long-segment ASD fusion to the sacrum. This new paradigm will allow for more detailed and consistent reporting of distal junctional complications following spinopelvic fusion, with or without supplemental pelvic fixation and/or concomitant SIJ fusion. This classification scheme resulted in high intra- and interrater reliability.
Establishing a Threshold of Impairment to Define Preoperative Coronal Malalignment in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients
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.
Advancing Metastatic Spine Tumor Research: A Review of AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor’s Scientific Contributions Derived From the EPOSO Network, 2014-2024
Study Design Narrative Review. Objectives To summarize the work of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor, specifically studies from the Epidemiology, Process and Outcomes in Spine Oncology (EPOSO) study. Methods A narrative review of all published manuscripts from the EPOSO study was undertaken. EPOSO represents a multicenter, prospective registry effort across 10 North American and European sites to enroll patients with metastatic disease of the spine. Results The current review summarized all studies from the EPOSO network, divided into the following five sections: (1) quality of life and satisfaction, (2) overall survival, (3) spinal instability, (4) neurologic outcome in patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression or radicular pain, and (5) patient and tumor-specific factors. Several important findings were elucidated. Patient evaluation should include SINS, nutritional status, severity and duration of neurologic deficit, extent of metastatic tumor burden, and differentiation of axial from radicular pain. Moreover, SOSGOQ2.0 serves as a useful and validated instrument for patient-reported outcome instrument. Despite the palliative nature of metastatic spine surgery, clear improvement in quality-of-life is seen. Even in patients with short-survival, the remaining weeks and months of life result in improved quality-of-life. Metastatic spine surgery often improves neurologic function, potentially enhancing survival through increased performance status. Conclusions Several noteworthy results have come from the EPOSO network, highlighting important trends in metastatic spine care. The AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor has helped advancing metastatic spine tumor research as well as ensure these new findings reach and benefit clinicians and their patients.
Prospective Validation of the Spinal Cord Shape Classification System in the Prediction of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Data Loss
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.
Impact of Unplanned Readmission on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Cervical Spine Surgery: A National Study of 13 355 Patients
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although risk factors for unplanned readmission after cervical spine surgery have been widely reported, less is known about how readmission itself affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Using the Quality Outcomes Database registry of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, we sought to (1) determine the impact of unplanned readmission on PROMs and (2) compare the effect of specific readmission reasons on PROMs. METHODS: An observational study was performed using a multi-institution, retrospective registry for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. The occurrence of 90-day unplanned readmission classified into medical, surgical, pain only, and no readmissions was the exposure variable. Outcome variables included 12-month PROMs of Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-neck/arm pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and patient dissatisfaction. Multivariable models predicting each PROM were built using readmission reasons controlling for demographics, clinical characteristics, and preoperative PROMs. RESULTS: Data from 13 355 patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery (82% anterior approach and 18% posterior approach) were analyzed. Unplanned readmission within 90 days of surgery occurred in 3.8% patients, including medical (1.6%), surgical (1.8%), and pain (0.3%). Besides medical reasons, wound infection/dehiscence was the most common reason for unplanned readmission for the total cohort (0.5%), dysphagia in the anterior approach (0.6%), and wound infection/dehiscence in the posterior approach (1.5%). Based on multivariable regression, surgical readmission was significantly associated with worse 12-month NDI, NRS-neck pain, NRS-arm pain, EQ-5D, and higher odds of dissatisfaction. Pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month NDI and NRS-neck pain scores, and worse dissatisfaction. For specific readmission reasons, pain, surgical site infection/wound dehiscence, hematoma/seroma, revision surgery, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were significantly associated with worsened 12-month PROMs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, 90-day unplanned surgical and pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month PROMs compared with patients with medical readmissions and no readmissions.
The “Sandwich” Extended Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for the Treatment of Fixed Sagittal Malalignment: Technical Description, Case Series, and Early Results With 2-Year Outcomes
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.
Management of Anticoagulation/Antiplatelet Medication and Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Elective Spine Surgery: Concise Clinical Recommendations Based on a Modified Delphi Process
Study Design. Delphi method. Objective. To gain consensus on the following questions: (1) When should anticoagulation/antiplatelet (AC/AP) medication be stopped before elective spine surgery?; (2) When should AC/AP medication be restarted after elective spine surgery?; (3) When, how, and in whom should venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis be started after elective spinal surgery? Summary of Background Data. VTE can lead to significant morbidity after adult spine surgery, yet postoperative VTE prophylaxis practices vary considerably. The management of preoperative AC/AP medication is similarly heterogeneous. Materials and Methods. Delphi method of consensus development consisting of three rounds (January 26, 2021, to June 21, 2021). Results. Twenty-one spine surgeons were invited, and 20 surgeons completed all rounds of questioning. Consensus (>70% agreement) was achieved in 26/27 items. Group consensus stated that preoperative Direct Oral Anticoagulants should be stopped two days before surgery, warfarin stopped five days before surgery, and all remaining AC/AP medication and aspirin should be stopped seven days before surgery. For restarting AC/AP medication postoperatively, consensus was achieved for low-risk/medium-risk/high-risk patients in 5/5 risk factors (VTE history/cardiac/ambulation status/anterior approach/operation). The low/medium/high thresholds were POD7/POD5/POD2, respectively. For VTE chemoprophylaxis, consensus was achieved for low-risk/medium-risk/high-risk patients in 12/13 risk factors (age/BMI/VTE history/cardiac/cancer/hormone therapy/operation/anterior approach/staged separate days/staged same days/operative time/transfusion). The one area that did not gain consensus was same-day staged surgery. The low-threshold/medium-threshold/high-threshold ranges were postoperative day 5 (POD5) or none/POD3-4/POD1-2, respectively. Additional VTE chemoprophylaxis considerations that gained consensus were POD1 defined as the morning after surgery regardless of operating finishing time, enoxaparin as the medication of choice, and standardized, rather than weight-based, dose given once per day. Conclusions. In the first known Delphi study to address anticoagulation/antiplatelet recommendations for elective spine surgery (preoperatively and postoperatively); our Delphi consensus recommendations from 20 spine surgeons achieved consensus on 26/27 items. These results will potentially help standardize the management of preoperative AC/AP medication and VTE chemoprophylaxis after adult elective spine surgery.
Outcomes Following Direct Versus Indirect Decompression Techniques for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
Study Design. Retrospective review. Objective. The aim was to compare outcomes at 3 and 12 months for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with direct decompression (DD) versus indirect decompression (ID) techniques. Summary of Background Data. Debate persists regarding the optimal surgical strategy to treat lumbar spondylolisthesis. Novel techniques relying on ID have shown superior radiographic outcomes compared to DD, however, doubt remains regarding their effectiveness in achieving adequate decompression. Currently, there is a paucity of data comparing the clinical efficacy of DD to ID. Methods. The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter prospective spine registry, was queried for patients who underwent DD and ID between April 2013 and January 2019. Propensity scores for each treatment were estimated using logistic regression dependent on baseline covariates potentially associated with outcomes. The propensity scores were used to exclude nonsimilar patients. Multivariable regression analysis was performed with the treatment and covariate as independent variables and outcomes as dependent variables. Results. A total of 4163 patients were included in the DD group and 86 in the ID group. The ID group had significantly lower odds of having a longer hospital stay and for achieving 30% improvement in back and leg pain at 3 months. These trends were not statistically significant at 12 months. There were no differences in ED5D scores or Oswestry disability index 30% improvement scores at 3 or 12 months. ID patient had a significantly higher rate of undergoing a repeat operation at 3 months (4.9% vs. 1.5%, P =0.015). Conclusion. Our study suggests that both DD and ID for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis result in similar clinical outcomes, with the exception that those treated with ID experienced a lower reduction in back and leg pain at 3 months and a higher 3-month reoperation rate. This data can provide surgeons with additional information when counseling patients on the pros and cons of ID versus DD surgery.
Complications, Readmissions, Revisions, and Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients With Parkinson Disease Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery: A Propensity-matched Analysis
Study Design. Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. Objective. To determine the effectiveness of elective spine surgery in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). Background Context. PD has become increasingly prevalent in an aging population. While surgical treatment for degenerative spine pathology is often required in this population, previous literature has provided mixed results regarding its effectiveness. Methods. Data from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried between April 2013 and January 2019. Three surgical groups were identified: (1) elective lumbar surgery, (2) elective cervical surgery for myelopathy, (3) elective cervical surgery for radiculopathy. Patients without PD were propensity matched against patients with PD in a 5:1 ratio without replacement based on American Society of Anesthesiology grade, arthrodesis, surgical approach, number of operated levels, age, and baseline Oswestry Disability Index, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) extremity pain, NRS back pain, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D). The mean difference was calculated for continuous outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, NRS leg pain, NRS back pain, and EQ-5D at 3 and 12 mo after surgery) and the risk difference was calculated for binary outcomes (patient satisfaction, complications, readmission, reoperation, and mortality). Results. For the lumbar analysis, PD patients had a higher rate of reoperation at 12 months (risk difference=0.057, P=0.015) and lower mean EQ-5D score at 12 months (mean difference=−0.053, P=0.005) when compared with patients without PD. For the cervical myelopathy cohort, PD patients had lower NRS neck pain scores at 3 months (mean difference=−0.829, P=0.005) and lower patient satisfaction at 3 months (risk difference=−0.262, P=0.041) compared with patients without PD. For the cervical radiculopathy cohort, PD patients demonstrated a lower readmission rate at 3 months (risk difference=−0.045, P=0.014) compared with patients without PD. Conclusion. For the matched analysis, in general, patients with and without PD had similar patient-reported outcomes and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates. These results demonstrate that a diagnosis of PD alone should not represent a major contraindication to elective spine surgery.