1- vs. 2-year follow-up after posterior spinal fusion for AIS: what additional information is gained?

Three-dimensional deformity correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients: what are the benefits of hybrid apical sublaminar bands versus all-pedicle screws?

The amount of three-dimensional (3D) correction with apical sublaminar band (hybrid-SLB) technique has not been compared to all-pedicle screw instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) using detailed axial correction metrics or comparable rod types. Our purpose is to compare 3D improvement in AIS deformities following posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion (PSIF) with hybrid-SLB and segmental correction to all-pedicle screw correction. Patients ages 10-18 years with AIS who underwent PSIF between 2015 and 2022 and had preoperative and postoperative EOS imaging were included. Electronic medical records were reviewed for demographic, Lenke classification, operative technique, and 3D EOS data. Average changes in major and minor Cobb angle, axial rotation, thoracic kyphosis, and lumbar lordosis were compared. Ninety-five patients met inclusion criteria with 55 in the hybrid-SLB group (mean age 14.9 ± 1.9 years) and 40 in all-pedicle screw (mean age 14.7 ± 2.1 years). While all-pedicle screw demonstrated greater correction of major (45.7 ± 13.4 vs 37.9 ± 14.3 degrees; P = 0.008) and minor (28.7 ± 13.1 vs 17.8 ± 12.5 degrees; P = 0.001) Cobb angles, hybrid-SLB showed greater increase in T4-T12 kyphosis (13.3 ± 15.3 vs 5.6 ± 13.5 degrees; P = 0.01). Correction of T1-T12 kyphosis, axial rotation, and lumbar lordosis was similar between groups. 3D EOS analysis of AIS patients before and after PSIF revealed that all-pedicle screw constructs had greater overall coronal plane correction and hybrid-SLB had greater thoracic sagittal plane correction. Axial corrective abilities were similar. Hybrid-SLB may have advantages for correction of thoracic lordosis or hypokyphosis. Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Using PROMIS Scores to Provide Cost-Conscious Follow-up After Foot and Ankle Surgery

BACKGROUND

National campaigns in the United States, such as Choosing Wisely, emphasize that decreasing low-value office visits maximizes health care value. Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used to quantify postoperative outcomes, they have not been assessed as a tool to help guide clinicians consider alternatives or discontinue in-person follow-up visits. The purpose of this study is to assess the frequency and cost of in-person follow-up visits after patients report substantial improvement defined as 2 consecutive improvements above preoperative Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) scores.

METHODS

Retrospective PROMIS PI data were obtained between 2015 and 2020 for common elective foot (n = 759) and ankle (n = 578) surgical procedures. Patients were divided into quartiles according to their preoperative PI score. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate time to substantial improvement. Substantial improvement was defined as having 2 consecutive postoperative minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) above preoperative PROMIS PI scores. MCID was measured using the distribution-based method. Multivariable negative binomial models were used to determine the number of visits and direct associated costs after substantial improvement. The cost to payors was estimated using reimbursement rates.

RESULTS

Within 3 months, 12% to 46% of foot and 16% to 61% of ankle patients achieved substantial improvement. Results vary by preoperative pain quartile, with patients who report higher preoperative pain scores achieving earlier improvement. After achieving substantial improvement, foot and ankle patients averaged 3.60 and 4.01 follow-up visits during the remaining 9 months of the year. Visit costs averaged $266 and $322 per foot and ankle patient respectively.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative follow-up visits are time-consuming and costly. Physicians might consider objective measures, such as PROMIS PI, to determine the need, timing, and alternatives for in-person follow-up visits for elective foot and ankle surgeries after patients demonstrate reliable clinical improvement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study at a single institution.

The Effect of Implant Density on Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Fusion: Results of the Minimize Implants Maximize Outcomes Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) can be treated with instrumented fusion, but the number of anchors needed for optimal correction is controversial.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized study that included patients undergoing spinal fusion for single thoracic curves between 45° and 65°, the most common form of operatively treated AIS. Of the 211 patients randomized, 108 were assigned to a high-density screw pattern and 103, to a low-density screw pattern. Surgeons were instructed to use ≥1.8 implants per spinal level fused for patients in the high-implant-density group or ≤1.4 implants per spinal level fused for patients in the low-implant-density group. The primary outcome measure was the percent correction of the coronal curve at the 2-year follow-up. The power analysis for this trial required 174 patients to show equivalence, defined as a 95% confidence interval (CI) within a ±10% correction margin with a probability of 90%.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean percent correction of the coronal curve was equivalent between the high-density and low-density groups at the 2-year follow-up (67.6% versus 65.7%; difference, -1.9% [95% CI: -6.1%, 2.2%]). In the per-protocol cohorts, the mean percent correction of the coronal curve was also equivalent between the 2 groups at the 2-year follow-up (65.0% versus 66.1%; difference, 1.1% [95% CI: -3.0%, 5.2%]). A total of 6 patients in the low-density group and 5 patients in the high-density group required reoperation (p = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of spinal fusion for primary thoracic AIS curves between 45° and 65°, the percent coronal curve correction obtained with use of a low-implant-density construct and that obtained with use of a high-implant-density construct were equivalent.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Correlation of radiographic parameters and patient satisfaction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with posterior screw-dual-rod instrumentation

PURPOSE

In surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), only a few studies measure both, radiological parameters and PROMs and correlate them.

METHODS

Prospectively collected AIS-data of one scoliosis-center within a multicenter German-Spine-Society-Study. All patients underwent instrumented posterior spinal correction and fusion with pedicle-screw-dual-rod-systems from 05/2019 to 01/2021. The data were retrospectively analyzed.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

age 11-17 years, follow-up (FU) at least 12 months. Clinical data, radiographic parameters, and PROMs (SRS-30-questionnaire) were collected. 100% of patients had X-ray images, 88.2% completed SRS-30. Parameters were given as mean ± SD. Differences and subdivision by lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) were analyzed by students t-test (significancy a = 0.05), associations by Pearson's correlation.

RESULT

Total of 51 patients: 15 ± 1.4 years, BMI 20.7 ± 3.7 kg/m2, FU 16.6 ± 6.1 months, fusion length 9.2 ± 2.3 segments, implant density 93 ± 9%, surgical time 215 ± 71 min, mean blood loss 504 ± 360 ml. Mean preoperative Cobb angle of main curve 64 ± 14°, of secondary main curve 46 ± 12°, corrected by 68 ± 11%, 56 ± 17%, respectively. Mean thoracic rib and lumbar hump significantly decreased by - 8.5 ± 7.0° and - 7.7 ± 8.9° (p < 0.5). High thoracic rib hump almost unchanged, - 0.4 ± 2.8° (p = 0.3). Thoracic kyphosis (- 0.9 ± 12.8°, p = 0.6), lumbar lordosis (1.5 ± 10.1°, p = 0.3), clavicle angle (- 0.5 ± 2.7°) and spinopelvic parameters (p > 0.5) did not significantly change, only LIV-tilt from 24.5 ± 6.7° to 6.5 ± 4.3° (p < 0.05). PROMs significantly improved (p < 0.05), no significant improvement for function/activity (p = 0.4). Preoperative mean total-score was 3.6 ± 0.5, 4.2 ± 0.3 at FU(p < 0.05). Self-image improved in 67%. Moderately strong correlation for PROMs: the better LIV-tilt (r = - 0.5) correction and the shorter surgery time (r = - 0.4), the better SRS-30 total-score. No correlation for curve correction and patient's satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

In summary, results of this study demonstrate good surgical correction and significant improvement of most PROMs.