RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Assess changes in outcomes and surgical approaches for adult cervical deformity surgery over time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As the population ages and the prevalence of cervical deformity increases, corrective surgery has been increasingly seen as a viable treatment. Dramatic surgical advancements and expansion of knowledge on this procedure have transpired over the years, but the impact on cervical deformity surgery is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult cervical deformity patients (18 yrs and above) with complete baseline and up to the two-year health-related quality of life and radiographic data were included. Descriptive analysis included demographics, radiographic, and surgical details. Patients were grouped into early (2013-2014) and late (2015-2017) by date of surgery. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to assess differences in surgical, radiographic, and clinical outcomes over time. RESULTS: A total of 119 cervical deformity patients met the inclusion criteria. Early group consisted of 72 patients, and late group consisted of 47. The late group had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 0.72), more cerebrovascular disease (6% vs. 0%, both P <0.05), and no difference in age, frailty, deformity, or cervical rigidity. Controlling for baseline deformity and age, late group underwent fewer three-column osteotomies [odds ratio (OR)=0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06-0.76, P =0.014]. At the last follow-up, late group had less patients with: a moderate/high Ames horizontal modifier (71.7% vs. 88.2%), and overcorrection in pelvic tilt (4.3% vs. 18.1%, both P <0.05). Controlling for baseline deformity, age, levels fused, and three-column osteotomies, late group experienced fewer adverse events (OR=0.15, 95% CI: 0.28-0.8, P =0.03), and neurological complications (OR=0.1, 95% CI: 0.012-0.87, P =0.03). CONCLUSION: Despite a population with greater comorbidity and associated risk, outcomes remained consistent between early and later time periods, indicating general improvements in care. The later cohort demonstrated fewer three-column osteotomies, less suboptimal realignments, and concomitant reductions in adverse events and neurological complications. This may suggest a greater facility with less invasive techniques.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To optimize quality of life in patients with cervical deformity (CD), there may be alignment targets to be prioritized. OBJECTIVE: To prioritize the cervical parameter targets for alignment. METHODS: Included: CD patients (C2-C7 Cobb >10°°, C2-C7 lordosis [CL] >10°°, cSVA > 4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle >25°°) with full baseline (BL) and 1-year (1Y) radiographic parameters and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores; patients with cervical (C) or cervicothoracic (CT) Primary Driver Ames type. Patients with BL Ames classified as low CD for both parameters of cSVA (<4 cm) and T1 slope minus CL (TS-CL) (<15°°) were excluded. Patients assessed: Meeting Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for NDI (<-15 ΔNDI). Ratios of correction were found for regional parameters categorized by Primary Ames Driver (C or CT). Decision tree analysis assessed cut-offs for differences associated with meeting NDI MCID at 1Y. RESULTS: Seventy-seven CD patients (62.1 years, 64%F, 28.8 kg/m2). 41.6% met MCID for NDI. A backward linear regression model including radiographic differences as predictors from BL to 1Y for meeting MCID for NDI demonstrated an R 2= 0.820 (P = 0.032) included TS-CL, cSVA, MGS, C2SS, C2-T3 angle, C2-T3 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), CL. By primary Ames driver, 67.5% of patients were C, and 32.5% CT. Ratios of change in predictors for MCID NDI patients for C and CT were not significant between the two groups (P > 0.050). Decision tree analysis determined cut-offs for radiographic change, prioritizing in the following order: ≥42.5° C2-T3 angle, >35.4° CL, <-31.76° C2 slope, <-11.57 mm cSVA, <-2.16° MGS, >-30.8 mm C2-T3 SVA, and ≤-33.6° TS-CL. CONCLUSIONS: Certain ratios of correction of cervical parameters contribute to improving neck disability. Prioritizing these radiographic alignment parameters may help optimize patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing CD surgery.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To prioritize the cervical parameter targets for alignment. METHODS: Included: cervical deformity (CD) patients (C2-7 Cobb angle > 10°, cervical lordosis > 10°, cervical sagittal vertical axis [cSVA] > 4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle > 25°) with full baseline (BL) and 1-year (1Y) radiographic parameters and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores; patients with cervical [C] or cervicothoracic [CT] Primary Driver Ames type. Patients with BL Ames classified as low CD for both parameters of cSVA ( < 4 cm) and T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL) ( < 15°) were excluded. Patients assessed: meeting minimum clinically important differences (MCID) for NDI ( < -15 ΔNDI). Ratios of correction were found for regional parameters categorized by primary Ames driver (C or CT). Decision tree analysis assessed cutoffs for differences associated with meeting NDI MCID at 1Y. RESULTS: Seventy-seven CD patients (mean age, 62.1 years; 64% female; body mass index, 28.8 kg/m2). Forty-one point six percent of patients met MCID for NDI. A backwards linear regression model including radiographic differences as predictors from BL to 1Y for meeting MCID for NDI demonstrated an R2 of 0.820 (p = 0.032) included TS-CL, cSVA, McGregor's slope (MGS), C2 sacral slope, C2-T3 angle, C2-T3 SVA, cervical lordosis. By primary Ames driver, 67.5% of patients were C, and 32.5% CT. Ratios of change in predictors for MCID NDI patients for C and CT were not significant between the 2 groups (p > 0.050). Decision tree analysis determined cutoffs for radiographic change, prioritizing in the following order: ≥ 42.5° C2-T3 angle, > 35.4° cervical lordosis, < -31.76° C2 slope, < -11.57-mm cSVA, < -2.16° MGS, > -30.8-mm C2-T3 SVA, and ≤ -33.6° TS-CL. CONCLUSION: Certain ratios of correction of cervical parameters contribute to improving neck disability. Prioritizing these radiographic alignment parameters may help optimize patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing CD surgery.

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective database. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify demographic, surgical, and radiographic factors that predict superior recovery kinetics following cervical deformity (CD) corrective surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Analyses of CD corrective surgery use area under the curve (AUC) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) metrics throughout recovery. METHODS: Outcome measures were baseline (BL) to 1-year (1Y) health-related quality of life (HRQL) (Neck Disability Index [NDI]). CD criteria were C2-7 Cobb angle >10°, coronal Cobb angle >10°, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) >4 cm, TS-CL >10°, or chin-brow vertical angle >25°. AUC normalization divided BL and postoperative outcomes by BL. Normalized scores (y axis) were plotted against follow-up (x axis). AUC was calculated and divided by cumulative follow-up length to determine overall, time-adjusted recovery (Integrated Health State [IHS]). IHS NDI was stratified by quartile, uppermost 25% being "Superior" Recovery Kinetics (SRK) versus "Normal" Recovery Kinetics (NRK). BL demographic, clinical, and surgical information predicted SRK using generalized linear modeling. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients included (62 ±â€Š10 years, 28 ±â€Š6 kg/m2, 65% females, Charlson Comorbidity Index: 0.95), 6% smokers, 31% smoking history. Surgical approach was: combined (33%), posterior (49%), anterior (18%). Posterior levels fused: 8.7, anterior: 3.6, estimated blood loss: 915.9ccs, operative time: 495 minutes. Ames BL classification: cSVA (53.2% minor deformity, 46.8% moderate), TS-CL (9.8% minor, 4.3% moderate, 85.9% marked), horizontal gaze (27.4% minor, 46.6% moderate, 26% marked). Relative to BL NDI (Mean: 47), normalized NDI decreased at 3 months (0.9 ±â€Š0.5, P = 0.260) and 1Y (0.78 ±â€Š0.41, P < 0.001). NDI IHS correlated with age (P = 0.011), sex (P = 0.042), anterior approach (P = 0.042), posterior approach (P = 0.042). Greater BL pelvic tilt (PT) (SRK: 25.6°, NRK: 17°, P = 0.002), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) (SRK: 8.4°, NRK: -2.8°, P = 0.009), and anterior approach (SRK: 34.8%, NRK: 13.3%; P = 0.020) correlated with SRK. 69.4% met MCID for NDI (<Δ-15) and 63.3% met substantial clinical benefit for NDI (<Δ-10); 100% of SRK met both MCID and substantial clinical benefit. The predictive model for SRK included (AUC = 88.1%): BL visual analog scale (VAS) EuroQol five-dimensional descriptive system (EQ5D) (odds rario [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-0.99), BL swallow sleep score (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.06), BL PT (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03-1.22), BL modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (mJOA) (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.07-2.16), BL T4-T12, BL T10-L2, BL T12-S1, and BL L1-S1. CONCLUSION: Superior recovery kinetics following CD surgery was predicted with high accuracy using BL patient-reported (VAS EQ5D, swallow sleep, mJOA) and radiographic factors (PT, TK, T10-L2, T12-S1, L1-S1). Awareness of these factors can improve decision-making and reduce postoperative neck disability.Level of Evidence: 3.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective database. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate postop clinical recovery among adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients between frailty states undergoing primary procedures SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Frailty severity may be an important determinant for impaired recovery after corrective surgery. METHODS: It included ASD patients with health-related quality of life (HRQLs) at baseline (BL), 1 year (1Y), and 3 years (3Y). Patients stratified by frailty by ASD-frailty index scale 0-1(no frailty: <0.3 [NF], mild: 0.3-0.5 [MF], severe: >0.5 [SF]). Demographics, alignment, and SRS-Schwab modifiers were assessed with χ/paired t tests to compare HRQLs: Scoliosis Research Society 22-question Questionnaire (SRS-22), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Back/Leg Pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Area-under-the-curve (AUC) method generated normalized HRQL scores at baseline (BL) and f/u intervals (1Y, 3Y). AUC was calculated for each f/u, and total area was divided by cumulative f/u, generating one number describing recovery (Integrated Health State [IHS]). RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were included (59 years, 80% females). Breakdown of patients by frailty status: 43.6% NF, 40.8% MF, 15.6% SF. SF patients were older (P = 0.003), >body mass index (P = 0.002). MF and SF were significantly (P < 0.001) more malaligned at BL: pelvic tilt (NF: 21.6°; MF: 27.3°; SF: 22.1°), pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (7.4°, 21.2°, 19.7°), sagittal vertical axis (31 mm, 87 mm, 82 mm). By SRS-Schwab, NF were mostly minor (40%), and MF and SF markedly deformed (64%, 57%). Frailty groups exhibited BL to 3Y improvement in SRS-22, ODI, NRS Back/Leg (P < 0.001). After HRQL normalization, SF had improvement in SRS-22 at year 1 and year 3 (P < 0.001), and NRS Back at 1Y. 3Y IHS showed a significant difference in SRS-22 (NF: 1.2 vs. MF: 1.32 vs. SF: 1.69, P < 0.001) and NRS Back Pain (NF: 0.52, MF: 0.66, SF: 0.6, P = 0.025) between frailty groups. SF had more complications (79%). SF/marked deformity had larger invasiveness score (112) compared to MF/moderate deformity (86.2). Controlling for baseline deformity and invasiveness, SF showed more improvement in SRS-22 IHS (NF: 1.21, MF: 1.32, SF: 1.66, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although all frailty groups exhibited improved postop disability/pain scores, SF patients recovered better in SRS-22 and NRS Back. Despite SF patients having more complications and larger invasiveness scores, they had overall better patient-reported outcomes, signifying that with frailty severity, patients have more room for improvement postop compared to BL quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Asunto(s)