Polly, David W.

Background: Surgical indications for Scheuermann kyphosis are variable. We sought to evaluate the characteristics of patients undergoing operative versus nonoperative treatment of Scheuermann kyphosis to better understand current practices and the factors which contribute to the decision for surgical management. Methods: Multicenter prospective cohort study. We evaluated consecutive patients presenting with Scheuermann kyphosis. Patients underwent either surgical or nonoperative management according to surgeon and patient discretion. Preoperative patient-reported outcome measures (Scoliosis Research Society and Spinal Appearance Questionnaire scores), demographics, and radiographic characteristics were assessed. Results: Overall, 150 patients with Scheuermann kyphosis were enrolled, with 77 choosing nonoperative treatment and 73 treated operatively. Compared with the nonoperative cohort, patients treated operatively were older (16.3±2.0 vs. 15.1±2.2, P=0.0004), and had higher body mass index (26.3±7.2 vs. 22.7±6.5, P=0.003), had greater T2-T12 kyphosis (71±14 degrees vs. 61±12 degrees, P<0.001), increased pelvic incidence (46 vs. 41 degrees, P=0.03) and pelvic tilt (10 vs. 3 degrees, P=0.03). There was no detected difference in maximal sagittal Cobb angle in the operative versus nonoperative patients (73±11 vs. 70±12 degrees, P=0.11). Functionally, the operative patients had worse Scoliosis Research Society pain scores (3.7±0.9 vs. 4.1±0.7, P=0.0027) and appearance scores (2.9±0.7 vs. 3.4±0.8, P <0.0001). Conclusions: Patients undergoing surgical management of Scheuermann disease were more likely to have large body mass index and worse pain scores. Other factors beyond radiographic measurement likely contribute to the decision for surgical management of Scheuermann kyphosis. Level of Evidence: Level II.

Background: Up to 10% of free-hand pedicle screws are malpositioned, and 1 in 300 patients may undergo return to surgery for revision of malpositioned screws. The indications for revision of asymptomatic malpositioned screws have not been carefully examined in the literature. We sought to evaluate the threshold among spinal deformity surgeons for revision of malpositioned screws. Methods: Twelve experienced spine surgeons reviewed x-ray and computed tomographic images of 32 malpositioned pedicle screws with variable degrees of anterior, medial, and lateral breeches. The surgeons were asked whether based on the image they would revise the screw: (1) intraoperatively before rod placement; (2) intraoperatively after rod placement; (3) in clinic with an asymptomatic patient. For each scenario, we assumed stable neuromonitoring and no neurological changes. Agreement and multirater κ was calculated. Results: There was good agreement as to which screws were malpositioned (80% agreement, κ=0.703). After the rod was placed or postoperatively (scenarios 2 and 3), surgeons less frequently recommended screw revision, and there was greater variability among the surgeons’ recommendations. For return to surgery from clinic for asymptomatic screw revision, % agreement was only 65% (κ=0.477). The majority recommended revision surgery for screws which approached the dura (10/12) or the aorta (7/12 surgeons). Half of the surgeons recommended revision surgery for an asymptomatic screw if the entire screw diameter was in the canal. Revision surgery was not recommended for asymptomatic patients with screws partially violating the canal (<½ the screw diameter), malpositioned laterally in the rib head, or with small anterior cortical violations remote from a vascular structure. Conclusions: There is significant variability of opinion among surgeons regarding which malpositioned screws can be safely observed in an asymptomatic patient. Given the frequency of malpositioned screws and morbidity of surgical return to surgery, more long-term data are needed to develop practice guidelines for determining which screws require revision surgery. Level of Evidence: Level III—retrospective comparative study.

OBJECT There is substantial heterogeneity in the number of screws used per level fused in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery. Assuming equivalent clinical outcomes, the potential cost savings of using fewer pedicle screws were estimated using a medical decision model with sensitivity analysis. METHODS Descriptive analyses explored the annual costs for 5710 AIS inpatient stays using discharge data from the 2009 Kids’ Inpatient Database (Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), which is a national all-payer inpatient database. Patients between 10 and 17 years of age were identified using the ICD-9-CM code for idiopathic scoliosis (737.30). All inpatient stays were assumed to represent 10-level fusions with pedicle screws for AIS. High screw density was defined at 1.8 screws per level fused, and the standard screw density was defined as 1.48 screws per level fused. The surgical return for screw malposition was set at $23,762. A sensitivity analysis was performed by varying the cost per screw ($600–$1000) and the rate of surgical revisions for screw malposition (0.117%–0.483% of screws; 0.8%–4.3% of patients). The reported outcomes include estimated prevented malpositioned screws (set at 5.1%), averted revision surgeries, and annual cost savings in 2009 US dollars, assuming similar clinical outcomes (rates of complications, revision) using a standard- versus high-density pattern. RESULTS The total annual costs for 5710 AIS hospital stays was $278 million ($48,900 per patient). Substituting a high for a standard screw density yields 3.2 fewer screws implanted per patient, with 932 malpositioned screws prevented and 21 to 88 revision surgeries for implant malposition averted, and a potential annual cost savings of $11 million to $20 million (4%–7% reduction in the total cost of AIS hospitalizations). CONCLUSIONS Reducing the number of screws used in scoliosis surgery could potentially decrease national AIS hospitalization costs by up to 7%, which may improve the safety and efficiency of care. However, such a screw construct must first be proven safe and effective.